The state, marriage, and tradition

[Belk]

Were I to “mentuon” the rest of the LBT mental ward, it would’ve made what should’ve been a relatively short post longer than necessary.

Interesting that you only “mentuon” the men though...

Excuse me?

 

[Belk]

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?

You are aware marriage started as a civil matter correct?

 

[Andrew77]

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?

John 4:18, Jesus is talking to the woman at the well. He said:

"for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true."

What this clearly points out, is that the woman was not legally married to the guy she was with.... and therefore she was not married to him.

We are supposed to follow the legal system for marriage.

Now I would support the idea of having legal framework for a State marriage, and a Religious marriage, that is controlled by the church.

However, until such a thing comes about, we need to follow the laws of the land.

 

[Pommer]

Now I would support the idea of having legal framework for a State marriage, and a Religious marriage, that is controlled by the church.

How is this functionally different from the status quo?

 

[Andrew77]

How is this functionally different from the status quo?

Because Religious institutions would control whether or not someone could get a divorce.

 

[Pommer]

Because Religious institutions would control whether or not someone could get a divorce.

And how would that comport to “equal under the law”?

 

[SimplyMe]

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.

Actually, you seem to have an issue with Recency Illusion, as many seem to on this topic. In fact, the concern of government's role in marriage easily goes back 50 years -- to Loving v Virginia -- with the issue cropping back up every so often (such as relatively recently, in 2009).

Of course, before the interracial marriage issue, there was the polygamy issue, which the Supreme Court heard in 1889 in Reynolds vs. The United States. Of course, that issue had started 50 years previously, in fact the Republican party was in large part founded on their opposition to polygamy (the Twin relics of Barbarism).

So this concern about the government's role in connection to marriage has existed for well over 150 years, and may even go back to the beginning of the country.

 

[Andrew77]

And how would that comport to “equal under the law”?

I'm not sure how that would even apply.

Any couple can choose to get a common law marriage, which you could divorce at any time, for any reason, like you can now.

Which is why marriage means very little under these pagan rules.

Additionally, any couple can choose to get married under religious law, but then they would be under that religious institution.

I don't see any problem with this. If you don't want to have to follow the rules of the religious institution, then don't get married by them. Get married by the state in common law marriage. Then when your wife cuts her hair too short, or burns the meatloaf, you can divorce her like the pagans do.

This system would seem to give everyone what they want. Right? Gays can go get married as much as they want from the state, and Christians can get married by the church.

This system respects everyone's beliefs, and respects everyone's religious values.

 

[Pommer]

I'm not sure how that would even apply.

Any couple can choose to get a common law marriage, which you could divorce at any time, for any reason, like you can now.

Which is why marriage means very little under these pagan rules.

Additionally, any couple can choose to get married under religious law, but then they would be under that religious institution.

I don't see any problem with this. If you don't want to have to follow the rules of the religious institution, then don't get married by them. Get married by the state in common law marriage. Then when your wife cuts her hair too short, or burns the meatloaf, you can divorce her like the pagans do.

This system would seem to give everyone what they want. Right? Gays can go get married as much as they want from the state, and Christians can get married by the church.

This system respects everyone's beliefs, and respects everyone's religious values.

Im pretty sure that “separate but equal” has been tried before and found to be wanting.

Creating a two-tiered marriage system seems cumbersome...also what happens if a gay couple marries in a gay-inclusive Church?

I’m not arguing a point, rather trying to work out the logistics and ramifications of a new marriage scheme*


*neutral, as in English English.

 

[Belk]

I'm not sure how that would even apply.

Any couple can choose to get a common law marriage, which you could divorce at any time, for any reason, like you can now.

Which is why marriage means very little under these pagan rules.

Additionally, any couple can choose to get married under religious law, but then they would be under that religious institution.

I don't see any problem with this. If you don't want to have to follow the rules of the religious institution, then don't get married by them. Get married by the state in common law marriage. Then when your wife cuts her hair too short, or burns the meatloaf, you can divorce her like the pagans do.

This system would seem to give everyone what they want. Right? Gays can go get married as much as they want from the state, and Christians can get married by the church.

This system respects everyone's beliefs, and respects everyone's religious values.

I fail to see how this is any different from the current system.

 

[Andrew77]

Im pretty sure that “separate but equal” has been tried before and found to be wanting.

Creating a two-tiered marriage system seems cumbersome...also what happens if a gay couple marries in a gay-inclusive Church?

I’m not arguing a point, rather trying to work out the logistics and ramifications of a new marriage scheme*


*neutral, as in English English.

Again, it would be whatever that religious institution says.

If you go to a church, and the church marries you under their system, then you married under their system.

It's that simple. Not all that complicated.

Just like if you had a church that had an 'anything goes marriage' like a State marriage, then it would just be a church with a marriage like the state.

 

[SimplyMe]

Again, it would be whatever that religious institution says.

If you go to a church, and the church marries you under their system, then you married under their system.

It's that simple. Not all that complicated.

Just like if you had a church that had an 'anything goes marriage' like a State marriage, then it would just be a church with a marriage like the state.

Are you saying it should be ok for Warren Jeffs to marry underage girls? After all, his religion allowed him to do it?

 

[Andrew77]

I fail to see how this is any different from the current system.

Here's is how it would be different.

So divorce laws across the country, pretty much have rendered marriage meaningless. In fact some pagans have said, why not just have marriage be a renewable contract that you just choose to renew it, or cancel it at the end of the year.

So you can get divorced without any reason whatsoever. In Ohio divorce code, they say "incompatible" is a reason for divorce.

Incompatible is not a reason for divorce according to the Bible. That just means you have two selfish people who refuse to compromise for the sake of the marriage. The entire point of the Bible is that you need to die to yourself, and compromising for the sake of unity, especially in marriage.

Under my system, if you wanted to have a meaningless marriage under the state, then you could do that.

However, if you wanted a marriage at a Bible based church, then you would be under the the authority of the church. If say you want a divorce, the state would tell you, that you have to file it with the church that you got married under. And when you filed with that church, they would say.... no. Incompatibility is not Biblical grounds for divorce. You have to work it out. You have to stay together for the kids. You have to obey the Bible, and stop being a self-centered snot.

That's how it would be different.

 

[Andrew77]

Are you saying it should be ok for Warren Jeffs to marry underage girls? After all, his religion allowed him to do it?

Do you think that is what I was saying? Really? Is that really what you thought I was advocating? How many posts did I say "yes we should lower the marrying age to 9, and be like Mohammad."

No, obviously there is a minimum age for marriage.

 

[Arcangl86]

Do you think that is what I was saying? Really? Is that really what you thought I was advocating? How many posts did I say "yes we should lower the marrying age to 9, and be like Mohammad."

No, obviously there is a minimum age for marriage.

Why obviously? If it is left to the decision of the churches, wouldn't they have the ability to set an age?

 

[Andrew77]

You are aware marriage started as a civil matter correct?

I would argue that civil matters and religious matter, were one and the same. Every aspect of government was affected by their religious views.

 

[Andrew77]

Why obviously? If it is left to the decision of the churches, wouldn't they have the ability to set an age?

I suppose you could set a higher age than the age of adulthood, but setting it lower is ridiculous. How can a non-adult, take on adult functions? This is why 5 year olds do not vote in elections, 10 year olds can't join the military.

You have to at least, be an adult. So no, obviously a child that is not even an adult,or can answer for themselves, can take on an adult function like marriage. You reach 18, and you are an adult under the law, and can answer for your actions.

You want to marry at 18, then it's up to your religious institution.

Your religious institution can have whatever rules for marriage they want, but only an adult has the legal authority to answer for themselves. So, no, you can't have a Church that somehow grants adulthood to a 5-year-old, and then allows that 'adult' 5-year-old to sign his name for marriage in a legal document.

I'm not trying to be snotty, but this discussion seems ridiculously obvious and absurd.

 

[Arcangl86]

I suppose you could set a higher age than the age of adulthood, but setting it lower is ridiculous. How can a non-adult, take on adult functions? This is why 5 year olds do not vote in elections, 10 year olds can't join the military.

You have to at least, be an adult. So no, obviously a child that is not even an adult,or can answer for themselves, can take on an adult function like marriage. You reach 18, and you are an adult under the law, and can answer for your actions.

You want to marry at 18, then it's up to your religious institution.

Your religious institution can have whatever rules for marriage they want, but only an adult has the legal authority to answer for themselves. So, no, you can't have a Church that somehow grants adulthood to a 5-year-old, and then allows that 'adult' 5-year-old to sign his name for marriage in a legal document.

I'm not trying to be snotty, but this discussion seems ridiculously obvious and absurd.

So the state can set some standards for marriage, but not all of them?

 

[Andrew77]

So the state can set some standards for marriage, but not all of them?

I don't consider age of adulthood, to be a standard for marriage. That's a standard for what is an adult.

Thus I do not consider it to be the state imposing standards on religious institutions, to say that obviously someone who is not an adult, cannot enter into legally binding contracts.

I mean in order for this to work, naturally the state has to recognize the marriage as legally binding, or it means nothing. Right? But if the person is under 18, then it can't be legally binding. You don't need a law saying you can't marry someone 17. Because if you are 17, you can't enter into a legally binding agreement of any kind.

It's like a 17 year old cannot open a checking account. That's not the government imposing laws on banks on what age someone can have account. It is simply that a 17 year old is not an adult, and thus an adult has to open the account. Legally, the money that is in that bank account is not actually the 17 year olds, it's his/her parents account. That's why the parent has to sign for it, because it's really their account under the law.

Similarly, a 17 year old cannot get married because they are not an adult, and cannot legally engage in a binding contract like that.

Now the one thing I would change, is that there are some state that if all the parents sign off on getting married under the age of adulthood, then the states allow that.

I think that's bad. Those states need to eliminate those laws. But again, that is a separate issue in my book, completely unrelated.

My entire assumption from the start is that you have to be an adult to engage in a contract. So that two people who are not adults under the law, can engage in a contract with each other, because people who are adults, signed for them to do so.. that's not logical.

If that is the direction you were going with this discussion, then I now can understand your point. But that has nothing, in my opinion, to do with my idea. That is a separate problem.

In fact, I would guess that this would fix most of that. I highly doubt that any recognized religious institution would sign off on letting 12 year olds get married. Can you imagine the negative publicity if the Catholic church allowed that? They wouldn't do it.

 

[Belk]

Here's is how it would be different.

So divorce laws across the country, pretty much have rendered marriage meaningless. In fact some pagans have said, why not just have marriage be a renewable contract that you just choose to renew it, or cancel it at the end of the year.

So you can get divorced without any reason whatsoever. In Ohio divorce code, they say "incompatible" is a reason for divorce.

Incompatible is not a reason for divorce according to the Bible. That just means you have two selfish people who refuse to compromise for the sake of the marriage. The entire point of the Bible is that you need to die to yourself, and compromising for the sake of unity, especially in marriage.

Under my system, if you wanted to have a meaningless marriage under the state, then you could do that.

However, if you wanted a marriage at a Bible based church, then you would be under the the authority of the church. If say you want a divorce, the state would tell you, that you have to file it with the church that you got married under. And when you filed with that church, they would say.... no. Incompatibility is not Biblical grounds for divorce. You have to work it out. You have to stay together for the kids. You have to obey the Bible, and stop being a self-centered snot.

That's how it would be different.

Your idea here contains two assumptions that I find problematic.

1) That marriage only has "meaning" if you are in a contract that you can not easily leave
2) That religious must be forced to stay in the contract by the state

I am married and my marriage has meaning because my wife and I have given it meaning. Being required to stay married by the state unless I meet some arbitrary criteria would not add meaning, it would detract from it. I would not be staying from choice but from necessity.

Likewise every religious person is currently free to follow the dictates of their religion regarding marriage. If a religion requires the state to enforce its rules in order for marriage to have meaning in your eyes then religion is superfluous to marriage.