Govt free marriages

[Stealth001]

Marriage is a spiritual covenant. If a couple wishes to have a government free marriage, and knows all the implications of that decision, I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Marriage is a spiritual covenant. If a couple wishes to have a government free marriage, and knows all the implications of that decision, I see nothing wrong with it.

So you wouldn't accuse them of "living in sin"?

 

[RDKirk]

Courts throw pre-nupts out all the time. Not reliable.

"All the time," no. Not all the time, not even most of the time.

Frequently a divorce involves issues that were not covered in the pre-nup. That happens with any contract dissolution. The answer to that is to write more comprehensive pre-nup agreements.

But that's not "throwing out the pre-nup;" those elements that had been adequately addressed in the pre-nup remain valid.

If there was nothing but the pre-nup, it wouldn't be an issue--it would all be handled like any other contract dispute. The big difference is that every domestic partnership dissolution would at least start with most if not all issues already determined, unlike a divorce in which almost nothing is determined by prior agreement, but everything by a hodgepodge of presumption and custom.

 

[pittsflyer]

I have heard of specific language being written in the pre-nup and the judge says its not in the best interest of the kids and that's that. Typically the woman will have baby fever and he will agree to have a kid with her but if she leaves he is not paying. Courts throw this out all the time.

Child support is where most men get burned, the calculators allow for quite high amounts to be awarded if the man makes good money. Often times way more than is required for the child to have necessities. So it becomes a form of spousal support.

"All the time," no. Not all the time, not even most of the time.

Frequently a divorce involves issues that were not covered in the pre-nup. That happens with any contract dissolution. The answer to that is to write more comprehensive pre-nup agreements.

But that's not "throwing out the pre-nup;" those elements that had been adequately addressed in the pre-nup remain valid.

If there was nothing but the pre-nup, it wouldn't be an issue--it would all be handled like any other contract dispute. The big difference is that every domestic partnership dissolution would at least start with most if not all issues already determined, unlike a divorce in which almost nothing is determined by prior agreement, but everything by a hodgepodge of presumption and custom.

 

[RDKirk]

I have heard of specific language being written in the pre-nup and the judge says its not in the best interest of the kids and that's that. Typically the woman will have baby fever and he will agree to have a kid with her but if she leaves he is not paying. Courts throw this out all the time.

Child support is where most men get burned, the calculators allow for quite high amounts to be awarded if the man makes good money. Often times way more than is required for the child to have necessities. So it becomes a form of spousal support.

As I said: Frequently a divorce involves issues that were not covered in the pre-nup. That happens with any contract dissolution. The answer to that is to write more comprehensive pre-nup agreements.

 

[pittsflyer]

That is not true, the cases I heard the man specificly wrote that she could not collect child support if she chose to leave. The judge over rulled it and that was that, there he was paying 25% while she was polishing some other guys pole.

As I said: Frequently a divorce involves issues that were not covered in the pre-nup. That happens with any contract dissolution. The answer to that is to write more comprehensive pre-nup agreements.

 

[Mayzoo]

A mother/father cannot sign away the child's right to child support before the kiddo is even born. The child cannot be penalized in a divorce for the actions of the mother/father (adultery, abandonment etc). A man/woman should never wish to punish his spouse by making their child suffer for the adults actions. In some states there is still punitive action available during a divorce for the party who committed adultery or abandonment, but those are not choices of the child, so they should not be punished.

Those who wrote up pre-nups that have punitive action against the child for the actions of the spouse should have gotten legal advice prior to writing their pre-nup. A lawyer would have informed them of the fact that that will not fly in a court. Additionally, pre-nups should never be written by lay people if large sums of money are involved.

A reasonable pre-nup would state clearly something along the lines of the one who earns a greater salary by X % will pay X % of their income towards child support per child.

 

[RDKirk]

A mother/father cannot sign away the child's right to child support before the kiddo is even born. The child cannot be penalized in a divorce for the actions of the mother/father (adultery, abandonment etc). A man/woman should never wish to punish his spouse by making their child suffer for the adults actions. In some states there is still punitive action available during a divorce for the party who committed adultery or abandonment, but those are not choices of the child, so they should not be punished.

Those who wrote up pre-nups that have punitive action against the child for the actions of the spouse should have gotten legal advice prior to writing their pre-nup. A lawyer would have informed them of the fact that that will not fly in a court. Additionally, pre-nups should never be written by lay people if large sums of money are involved.

A reasonable pre-nup would state clearly something along the lines of the one who earns a greater salary by X % will pay X % of their income towards child support per child.

Yup. Experienced lawyers know better. This isn't different from ordinary contract law. There are types of agreements sometimes made between business parties that lawyers already know a judge will not honor, and they steer their clients away from such agreements.

For instance, a whole lot of rather common non-compete contracts wouldn't hold up in court regardless of the fact that they're "properly" signed.

 

[pittsflyer]

Depending on how courts enforce or not enforce things will drive social behavior with often times unfavorable unforeseen consequences. Negative birth rates among certain demographics is not going to be good. How is it working out for the Europeans?

Yup. Experienced lawyers know better. This isn't different from ordinary contract law. There are types of agreements sometimes made between business parties that lawyers already know a judge will not honor, and they steer their clients away from such agreements.

For instance, a whole lot of rather common non-compete contracts wouldn't hold up in court regardless of the fact that they're "properly" signed.

 

[Stealth001]

So you wouldn't accuse them of "living in sin"?

Nope. Because many Quaker, Amish, Mennonite, Baptists, and others recognize these "Covenant Marriages". This is actually preferable to many Christian couples and ministers.

Please review the following links:

How Do I Get Married Without A License?
How Do I Get Married Without A License? | NCRenegade

Christian Marriage Without License and Common Law Marriage: What's the Difference?
http://ezinearticles.com/?Christian...aw-Marriage:-Whats-the-Difference?&id=5134030

Marriage by Biblical Covenant Not State LicenseTruth In Living - Covenant Community Church - Education Station Whitehall, Montana

Marriage Without License
Marriage Without License | Church and State in America

Marriage License?
Marriage License

The Marriage Pledge
The Marriage Pledge

Bad idea for ministers to sign marriage licenses, pastors insist
https://www.baptiststandard.com/new...ters-to-sign-marriage-licenses-pastors-insist​

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Nope. Because many Quaker, Amish, Mennonite, Baptists, and others recognize these "Covenant Marriages". This is actually preferable to many Christian couples and ministers.

Please review the following links:

How Do I Get Married Without A License?
How Do I Get Married Without A License? | NCRenegade

Christian Marriage Without License and Common Law Marriage: What's the Difference?
http://ezinearticles.com/?Christian...aw-Marriage:-Whats-the-Difference?&id=5134030

Marriage by Biblical Covenant Not State LicenseTruth In Living - Covenant Community Church - Education Station Whitehall, Montana

Marriage Without License
Marriage Without License | Church and State in America

Marriage License?
Marriage License

The Marriage Pledge
The Marriage Pledge

Bad idea for ministers to sign marriage licenses, pastors insist
https://www.baptiststandard.com/new...ters-to-sign-marriage-licenses-pastors-insist​

I agree that, for purposes of morality, living together is equivalent to marriage, and should be considered to have the same moral implications as marriage, whatever our church considers that to be.

I see nothing wrong with going ahead with civil recognition/enrollment of the marriage.

I would tolerate people who forgo civil recognition/enrollment of the marriage just as I tolerate people who forgo vaccinations.

I'm not sure it springs from the best of attitudes, however.

 

[Stealth001]

In a day wherein the "government" claims the absolute power and authority to dispense, define, regulate, and dissolve marriage - the Quaker understanding of marriage contains some important implications that are worth reflecting upon...

"The right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priest's or magistrate's; for it is God's ordinance and not man's...we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses." ~ George Fox, 1669
​

 

[Stealth001]

I agree that, for purposes of morality, living together is equivalent to marriage, and should be considered to have the same moral implications as marriage, whatever our church considers that to be.

I see nothing wrong with going ahead with civil recognition/enrollment of the marriage.

I would tolerate people who forgo civil recognition/enrollment of the marriage just as I tolerate people who forgo vaccinations.

I'm not sure it springs from the best of attitudes, however.

I fear that a statist society has essentially branded the notion, not only in the minds of most believers, but in the minds of the general population. So, many couples who are committed for life don't declare their marriage in God's eyes, instead they have accepted the definition of guilt and shame placed upon them.

 

[Stealth001]

I agree that, for purposes of morality, living together is equivalent to marriage, and should be considered to have the same moral implications as marriage, whatever our church considers that to be.

I see nothing wrong with going ahead with civil recognition/enrollment of the marriage.

I would tolerate people who forgo civil recognition/enrollment of the marriage just as I tolerate people who forgo vaccinations.

I'm not sure it springs from the best of attitudes, however.

I'd say that ultimately it is a pastor's/elder's prerogative:

Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

 

[Breezyberlin]

Someone on hear argued that we should be "government married" because Peter and Paul said to obey the laws of the nation... Which implies that having a religious only marriage would in some way be illegal and it is not, therefore I think that argument is entirely besides the point.

Frankly, I so no grounds FOR government marriage, except for the fact that, yes, you are given certain rights as a legally recognized spouse, however, in a healthy situation, where the couple have been married by their community, in the eyes of God, and have a normal relatipnship with their families, I don't see this as causing an issue. The family that told the hippy-spous that it was a "family issue" and she couldn't make decisions, were, frankly, just mean, mean, mean.

The fact is, marriage is a religious institution. I see NO way someone who doesn't adhere to a religion that teaches marriage, should even value the marrital state. I cannot perceive why athiests want to get married, except that it is a social norm and for the tax benefits, etc.

I feel that Christians have given the government too much control over things that should be handled only by the Body (church), and that if we were really living with a seperation of church and state, the church would take care of marriages, make its own "laws" about what constitutes marriage, and there would be no need to vote on it, or even have this debate. Possibly legal issues would arise, in the case of death, or the case of polygamy.... but those issues arise anyway. In the end, it is a man's heart that matters and no amount of laws established by religious institutions or the government will be able to untangle or simplify the "issues" caused by... well... everything that people do.

If a couple wants to be married in the eyes of God and their community, making a real commitment to each other, I don't see any reason why not. In fact, I think that, as the governments become more and more hostile towards fundamental Christians, the Body of Christ might find that it is neccessary (gasp) to operate on their own, aside from the government. Without breaking reasonable laws, of course. For example, if every pastor who refuses to marry homosexual couples is officially banned from preforming legal marriages in the U.S., I would most definitly still let my pastor marry me and I would happily wave bye-bye to my government legal status of marriage. In the end, the Kingdom governement is all that matters.

 

[Mayzoo]

Christians have not given the government too much control. God gave the government control over Christians. We are simply left with the choices to obey God (obey Government) or sin.

As for marriage in the US, if we do not obtain a license, then we are not legally married. IMO, if we are not legally married, we are not married in God's eye as he is the one who commanded we obey the law. If we did not obey the law to become married we sinned to become married. The marriage license law does not violate God's law, so we are left with the sole choice of obey, or sin. Simply put, God does not bless sin (disobedience).


Romans 13 New International Version (NIV)

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

 

[Breezyberlin]

Soooo... If you lived in a country where the state (through a state church, i.e. Germany) can offer a legal certificate of baptism and the free church cannot, you would consider baptism preformed by say, a Baptist church, not legally valid and therefore not valid in God's eyes?
What if that church issueing the LEGAL certificate of baptism, once again, taking the Evangelishe Kirche in Germany as an example, is completely apostate? You would still insist that the certificate must be government issues, i.e. through the apostate church, to be valid?

Essentially I agree with you about following the laws of a nation, except when they go against Biblical teaching. However, I do believe in man-made laws, (Let's look at some of the laws in Soviet Europe.......) and I would not elevate the laws of a nation over the laws of the Bible, even though I understand that we must follow the law, as Jesus' followers, except, again, when the laws go against Him directly.
There is no law, as far as I can tell, that says that a church cannot preform marriages without issueing a legal form of marriage. Nor is there a law that people cannot live together without a legal marriage certificate. So I repeat, if the couple are not breaking the law, the pastor preforming the marriage is not breaking the law, and the couple are in fact, honoring God and their local body, by making a public commitment to each other, in a Biblical context of marriage, I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[Mayzoo]

Soooo... If you lived in a country where the state (through a state church, i.e. Germany) can offer a legal certificate of baptism and the free church cannot, you would consider baptism preformed by say, a Baptist church, not legally valid and therefore not valid in God's eyes?
What if that church issueing the LEGAL certificate of baptism, once again, taking the Evangelishe Kirche in Germany as an example, is completely apostate? You would still insist that the certificate must be government issues, i.e. through the apostate church, to be valid?

Essentially I agree with you about following the laws of a nation, except when they go against Biblical teaching. However, I do believe in man-made laws, (Let's look at some of the laws in Soviet Europe.......) and I would not elevate the laws of a nation over the laws of the Bible, even though I understand that we must follow the law, as Jesus' followers, except, again, when the laws go against Him directly.
There is no law, as far as I can tell, that says that a church cannot preform marriages without issueing a legal form of marriage. Nor is there a law that people cannot live together without a legal marriage certificate. So I repeat, if the couple are not breaking the law, the pastor preforming the marriage is not breaking the law, and the couple are in fact, honoring God and their local body, by making a public commitment to each other, in a Biblical context of marriage, I don't see anything wrong with it.

I cannot speak on laws of other countries as I have never lived outside the US nor have I studied laws outside the US.

Of course anyone choosing to live together are not breaking man's law. People who choose to simply live together are not presenting themselves as married either. If they wish to lie and state they are married, that is also not illegal unless they are defrauding the government somehow. However, they are sinning by having sex outside of marriage.

The church can perform a covenant marriage if they wish. It is not a legal marriage, but they may do so if they wish and they are not violating any laws. The couple is not violating any laws unless they present themselves as legally married in a manner to defraud the government or another. However, they are sinning by living together and they would be sinning if they present themselves as married when they are not married. As with all sins, this is between the couple and God, so none of us need to be directly involved in this.

In Bible times, the government was not involved in marriage. There were no laws governing marriage.

Now, if one wishes to be legally married in the US, they must obtain a marriage license or they are not legally married. I cannot see how one wishes to be blessed by God in a marriage if they did not obey God's rulings on becoming married. God said obey the law. The law say to get a marriage license. Each of us must choose to obey God or not.

 

[Breezyberlin]

I cannot speak on laws of other countries as I have never lived outside the US nor have I studied laws outside the US.

The church can perform a covenant marriage if they wish. It is not a legal marriage, but they may do so if they wish and they are not violating any laws. The couple is not violating any laws unless they present themselves as legally married in a manner to defraud the government or another.

Now, if one wishes to be legally married in the US, they must obtain a marriage license or they are not legally married..

1. I was not asking you to comment on "laws in other countries". I was asking you to give your opinion about a specific law, which specifically pertains to the topic of government being involved in religion. I gave you all of the details so that you could give your opinion, without having to know more about it, I hoped. I would still like to hear your opinion in that specific instance.

2. I think we agree on the essence, based on your last two comments. Obviously, I agree that a couple who are married by covenant (love that word choice!) through their church, should never defraud the government, or anyone, in anyway, by presenting themselves as legally married.
In the case of a covenant, through (with) a church community, I would not consider the couple to be in sin. And, in as much, as I do not think that a couple must be legally married to be considered married and above sinful reproach, I also do not think that couples can privately just announce to themselves, "We are now married." and that is that. I would consider that devalueing the covenant of marriage, the importance of The Body in our lives.... In other words, just because I do not feel that the government must consent to people being married, through their Body, doesn't mean that I feel it should be easier or less "ceremonious" to be married.

 

[Mayzoo]

1. I was not asking you to comment on "laws in other countries". I was asking you to give your opinion about a specific law, which specifically pertains to the topic of government being involved in religion. I gave you all of the details so that you could give your opinion, without having to know more about it, I hoped. I would still like to hear your opinion in that specific instance.

2. I think we agree on the essence, based on your last two comments. Obviously, I agree that a couple who are married by covenant (love that word choice!) through their church, should never defraud the government, or anyone, in anyway, by presenting themselves as legally married.
In the case of a covenant, through (with) a church community, I would not consider the couple to be in sin. And, in as much, as I do not think that a couple must be legally married to be considered married and above sinful reproach, I also do not think that couples can privately just announce to themselves, "We are now married." and that is that. I would consider that devalueing the covenant of marriage, the importance of The Body in our lives.... In other words, just because I do not feel that the government must consent to people being married, through their Body, doesn't mean that I feel it should be easier or less "ceremonious" to be married.

Sorry, I try to not comment in ignorance, and I just do not have the time this morning to research the subjects you are speaking of in Germany in regard to Baptism.