Sex before marriage

[buzuxi02]

So how many different kinds of paperwork are there?
Back in the day when my parents were married and civil and religious marriages were two seperate things. They showed up to the courthouse or wherever the heck it took place and the guy asked for the rings. My parents said they didn't bring them as they are getting married next week and are there to get the government formalities out of the way.

 

[Antony in Tx]

Wait - you did both? That's not how it's supposed to work - once you've filed the declaration, you are considered married in the eyes of the state. It's another way of getting married, not a different form of marriage.

The State of Texas treats a "Marriage License" differently from a "Declaration of Common Law Marriage". The latter is an affadavit for purposes of asset allocation and access to banking, insurance, estate survivorship, and the like. The former is considered more formal and also allows a name change, plus all of the assumptions made with the latter. If we did our Church wedding without filing the "Marriage License", we would have needed a court hearing to effect my wife's name change as well, which would have possibly led to other legal issues with bank accounts in her former name, her passport, her social security, etc. We were advised by the county clerk to do it this way, and an attorney friend advised me that this is not necessarily that unusual.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm pretty sure things vary by state.

As a child, I had a family member that was in a common-law marriage, but it was by the terms of the state they were living in and would not have necessarily been recognized in other states. (In that time in that state, it required a specified period of time living as husband and wife, sharing financial aspects, and publicly acknowledging the union.)

I myself married in California some years ago and there were different forms of marriage there as well at the time. Marriage laws can be weird.

 

[MoeSzyslak]

If marriage is a sacrament and sacraments are only valid when completed by the church, then aren't all couples outside of the church essentially having sex outside of wedlock even if they are in a secular 'marriage'?

 

[~Anastasia~]

If marriage is a sacrament and sacraments are only valid when completed by the church, then aren't all couples outside of the church essentially having sex outside of wedlock even if they are in a secular 'marriage'?

This is not for me to judge. And you know of course (I see your faith icon is EO?) that the Orthodox Church does not concern herself with legalism and judging those outside the Church, so I don't really see the relevance? Forgive me please if I am missing something?

But God judges, and He is merciful. I find it difficult to believe that He is looking for technicalities on which to condemn people.

My response was intended for the particular poster's situation and question, not as a blanket loophole nor condemnation for anyone.

But it might be worth considering (in answer to your question) that even very recently in history, Christians as a group did not view civil marriages as being marriages in God's eyes. There was nearly always an insistence for blessing by the clergy/church, even among the various denominations.


EDIT: Please forgive me!!! I apologize - I am in a similar thread in GT, and I thought I was responding to a post there. I would not have said this in this way if I had realized what the ongoing conversation was. Forgive me if I seemed out of line with anything, or confused!

 

[Damaris]

That is not what common law marriage is. See my post for what it is. However, you are correct that we are not to do this in the Church. People in the Church must get married in the Church and are not to have sex before they are married in the Church.

http://thelawdictionary.org/common-lawmarriage/
http://kinglawoffices.com/common-law-marriage/

When you said "If you mean they are actually legally married, I don't see why the church would not consider them to be married", I was worried the original poster would get confused and think it's okay to cohabitate or get a courthouse wedding and that would be okay with the Church. That would only ever apply to people who were not Orthodox, and have come to the Church later.

 

[gzt]

Damaris: Yes, those jurisdiction specific links say pretty much the same thing I say. But, yes, it is important to make sure he understands: somebody who is in the Church is obliged to get married in the Church. Getting married by license or by common law is not sufficient. Somebody who converts to the Church and is already married, either by common law or be license, is probably going to be considered married.

Moe: no.

Kylissa: where are you finding this information that non-religious marriages were not viewed as real marriages? They were viewed as perhaps illicit in religious terms but not invalid.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Kylissa: where are you finding this information that non-religious marriages were not viewed as real marriages? They were viewed as perhaps illicit in religious terms but not invalid.

I am so sorry, GZT, I thought I was responding to another thread with a slightly different topic and trend of conversation. I've made a mess of things.

What I meant when I said that ... wow, I can't give you references, it's just that everyone thought that way where I came from, and historically I know in many other places as well. How many young people decided to get a civil ceremony and their parents were upset? Or how many people did not WANT a civil ceremony, believing that to be married in the Church was necessary? (I was one of the latter.)

I can't really speak in terms of what was licit, valid, etc. As I said, I was really answering a different question in another forum. I apologize for the mistake. I'm happy to elaborate if needed, but it was really a case of a misplaced post.

 

[buzuxi02]

If marriage is a sacrament and sacraments are only valid when completed by the church, then aren't all couples outside of the church essentially having sex outside of wedlock even if they are in a secular 'marriage'?

Only Church marriages are sacramental and for those married couples who agree to treat it as a Christ-centered institution.
Marriage has been around for thousands of years and the hallmarks have always been the same, a man and woman living in the same domicile presenting themselves as a couple and being recognized as such. This includes a recognition that this couple can be assumed to be parents or potential parents to offspring.

 

[buzuxi02]

What is illicit, valid, etc are all cultural. They are subjective terms.

In many countries a valid marriage in the city is one where the couple can present a certificate from the state, when that same couple returns to their remote mountain village, the mentality changes and their married because everyone recognise them as such and ask them why are they waiting to have kids.

The tribes in the amazon jungle have their own customs to coupling, etc etc

 

[gzt]

Not so much subjective as socially constructed, but, sure, otherwise I completely agree.

 

[E.C.]

From what I have read it is a sin to have sex before marriage however i just wanted to know if that applies if you are in a loving relationship with only one women?

Would that make a difference as in you two may not be able to get married due to financial constraints etc but will get married in the future.

No and no.