What are your thoughts about this?

[Stealth001]

A man and woman have been living together for nearly four years. They are both divorcees. Each experienced a very painful divorce that involved a level of abuse and betrayal. They each have children from their previous marriages. Each of them "played by the rules" in their previous marriages. They didn't live with their spouses before marriage or engage in premaritial sex. Both tried to ground their marriages in the Lord and their respective churches at the time. However, their marriages still failed. In each marriage their spouses "became someone they never knew" over the years. For each, their divorces were painful and very expensive.


Fast forward...


This couple has been living together for four years with their children and appear to be totally committed to one another. They have both discussed "marriage" and agreed that the way "marriage" is legally handled today is unjust. One stands to lose nearly half of everything they ever worked for and the cost of divorce can be crippling. It lays one out for nearly total decimation should one's spouse simply choose to want a divorce. For them, it's very scary. They've chosen to purchase rings and commit to one another under God as husband and wife. They also plan to begin declaring that they are husband and wife publically, to their church, and to family. They want nothing to do with the legality of marriage and divorce law as it exists in this culture. They are also going to sign a family Bible as husband and wife. To them, their marriage will be between themselves and God at their favorite picnic spot in their favorite local park. They understand that most would never accept their union as being real. So they are going to simply state that they "eloped to make it right in God's eyes" to friends and family. They are calling this "spiritual marriage". Should they ever decide to part, they wish to part cleanly, inexpensively, and privately... explaining that they "divorced". No courts, no legalities, no injusticies of the modern justice system.



Will God honor this???

 

[Luther073082]

A man and woman have been living together for nearly four years. They are both divorcees. Each experienced a very painful divorce that involved a level of abuse and betrayal. They each have children from their previous marriages. Each of them "played by the rules" in their previous marriages. They didn't live with their spouses before marriage or engage in premaritial sex. Both tried to ground their marriages in the Lord and their respective churches at the time. However, their marriages still failed. In each marriage their spouses "became someone they never knew" over the years. For each, their divorces were painful and very expensive.


Fast forward...


This couple has been living together for four years with their children and appear to be totally committed to one another. They have both discussed "marriage" and agreed that the way "marriage" is legally handled today is unjust. One stands to lose nearly half of everything they ever worked for and the cost of divorce can be crippling. It lays one out for nearly total decimation should one's spouse simply choose to want a divorce. For them, it's very scary. They've chosen to purchase rings and commit to one another under God as husband and wife. They also plan to begin declaring that they are husband and wife publically, to their church, and to family. They want nothing to do with the legality of marriage and divorce law as it exists in this culture. They are also going to sign a family Bible as husband and wife. To them, their marriage will be between themselves and God at their favorite picnic spot in their favorite local park. They understand that most would never accept their union as being real. So they are going to simply state that they "eloped to make it right in God's eyes" to friends and family. They are calling this "spiritual marriage". Should they ever decide to part, they wish to part cleanly, inexpensively, and privately... explaining that they "divorced". No courts, no legalities, no injusticies of the modern justice system.



Will God honor this???

Quite frankly no, because telling your church you are married and saying you are husband and wife doesn't make you married in most states. God would want you to follow the laws and the culture in terms of what you need to do to get married.

Now if both people have issues with the way the courts handle divorces, they could simpily sign a pre-nuptual agreement that agree's to a different way of dividing the assets in the event of divorce. Yeah a lot of people have a problem with that because they figure that it's planning for divorce. And that is true to some extent, but if these two not going to get legally married because they don't like how the divorce courts handle things, it already says that they are planning for divorce, at least as much as a pre-nup.

This is something that has red flags in a lot of places. I would recommend that this couple not do anything, not engage in sex, and not live together until they work past their issues with legal marriage.

Also I'm sort of curious as to these previous marriages they committed to the Lord. Are you trying to say that their spouse wasn't as committed or are you trying to say that 2 people committed to God and his way for marriage somehow still got divorced.

Because God says not to divorce unless you spouse commits adultry or deserts you.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

Yeah trust me, I thought of this same thing when I wanted to marry a fiance from the past. But the fact of the matter is that the bible makes it clear we have to follows mans laws when it comes to things like marriage. So if you do not legally marry, then God will not consider it a marriage then. And thus your sinning on so many levels.

The pre-nup idea would be best if your both worried about divorce. However make sure you both agree because often when I've seen people bring up pre-nups the other person gets offended because pre-nups you believe the marriage could go sour. Or in shorter terms it shows you lack trust. Which understandable since both people have been divorced before, but the people need to remember that the past is the past. You can't expect the new person to leave you.

I personally am not worried about my fiance divorcing me. One reason is in the Philippines there are no divorce laws, your married for life. Also filipino women are loyal to the end. However she will be moving here after we marry. But even so I am not worried about divorce. We've agreed its a word we won't ever use. Or as I told her, if you can even phathom the idea of divorce or someone leaving you... then your not ready to marry because your already not trusting 100%.

And ion our cases we both had pre-marital sex with ex-fiances who promise to marry us. So naturally we should have trust issues, but we don't because our trust is in God. And as stated above God says not to divorce. Its why I am glad I am not marrying an American because we americans seem to be quick to find a reason to leave someone. >.<

Lastly I doubt anyone (more so a christian) would find your marriage acceptable. Also you need to think about the end results aside from the fact its a sin. One of the end results is if one of the people ends up in hospital, the other "married half" will have no legal power to tell the doctor anything that they want done because they are not legally married. SO if they decide to pull the plug on the spouse, theres nothing the other person can do about it.

Not legally being married causes more trouble then its worth. Again thats not even counting the more important fact that God will not see the couple as married.

 

[iambren]

Desperate times---desperate measures. This is a very difficult question and I would be tempted to hop to Vegas to get that "wedding". Our economy sucks right now and families with children are put in weird situations to make things work. Things like--keeping medical insurance, custody, medical/disability benefits.

I would try very hard to make the penalties for marriage lesson. The covenant is three way God, wife, husband. But it is also public. After 4 years in some states you may be considered already married.

God bless you in your efforts; He sees your heart to do the right thing.

 

[Stealth001]

Yeah trust me, I thought of this same thing when I wanted to marry a fiance from the past. But the fact of the matter is that the bible makes it clear we have to follows mans laws when it comes to things like marriage. So if you do not legally marry, then God will not consider it a marriage then. And thus your sinning on so many levels.

The pre-nup idea would be best if your both worried about divorce. However make sure you both agree because often when I've seen people bring up pre-nups the other person gets offended because pre-nups you believe the marriage could go sour. Or in shorter terms it shows you lack trust. Which understandable since both people have been divorced before, but the people need to remember that the past is the past. You can't expect the new person to leave you.

I personally am not worried about my fiance divorcing me. One reason is in the Philippines there are no divorce laws, your married for life. Also filipino women are loyal to the end. However she will be moving here after we marry. But even so I am not worried about divorce. We've agreed its a word we won't ever use. Or as I told her, if you can even phathom the idea of divorce or someone leaving you... then your not ready to marry because your already not trusting 100%.

And ion our cases we both had pre-marital sex with ex-fiances who promise to marry us. So naturally we should have trust issues, but we don't because our trust is in God. And as stated above God says not to divorce. Its why I am glad I am not marrying an American because we americans seem to be quick to find a reason to leave someone. >.<

Lastly I doubt anyone (more so a christian) would find your marriage acceptable. Also you need to think about the end results aside from the fact its a sin. One of the end results is if one of the people ends up in hospital, the other "married half" will have no legal power to tell the doctor anything that they want done because they are not legally married. SO if they decide to pull the plug on the spouse, theres nothing the other person can do about it.

Not legally being married causes more trouble then its worth. Again thats not even counting the more important fact that God will not see the couple as married.

Good post. I was concerned that the marriage wouldn't be "legal" and that was the requirement that God has.

I can understand wanting the state out of it. Historically, marriages were ratified by signing each other's names in the family Bible and both families acknowledging the marriage. No marriage license was needed. Marriage licenses historically began in Europe as the wealthy tried to prevent wealthy children from marrying into the lower classes. Then in America the marriage license was instituted to prevent white people from marrying black people.

In my opinion, the government has only made marriage a high stakes gamble. And never in human history has a man stood to lose so much from a marriage that goes bad. In many states, even if the marriage fails due to the wife's indiscretions, the husband pays far far more. By marrying... a man stands to lose at least half to a third of his entire income and net wealth... where as a woman typically has little to lose unless she is guilty of aggregious abuse of spouse or children.

The Catholic church used to view marriage as a sacrement. If both families agreed, the couple declared their vows in a wheat field, and then asked the church to recognize them... it did.

Things have gotten really complicated. No wonder so many choose to cohabitate as opposed to getting married in today's world.

In the Jewish community there is a Jewish marriage and a Civil Marriage. Even if a couple gets a divorce in the civil courts... they need to get a Jewish divorce to end the marriage. I think there should be such a thing as a "spiritual marriage" in the eyes of the church. Should the couple want tax benefits etc. that goes along with having a "civil marriage" then and only then should they make it "legal".

But that's the Libertarian in me. lol

 

[Luther073082]

Desperate times---desperate measures. This is a very difficult question and I would be tempted to hop to Vegas to get that "wedding". Our economy sucks right now and families with children are put in weird situations to make things work. Things like--keeping medical insurance, custody, medical/disability benefits.

I would try very hard to make the penalties for marriage lesson. The covenant is three way God, wife, husband. But it is also public. After 4 years in some states you may be considered already married.

God bless you in your efforts; He sees your heart to do the right thing.

Very few states are doing the common law marriage thing anymore. Plus you would have to engage in sin for however long it takes before the state regards you as married.

So it's better to just get the marriage license and have it legal from the very beginning.

And like I said, if you are so worried about divorce that you don't want to sign the license, you might as well get a pre-nuptual agreement, because you are already considering the possibility of divorce anyways, so you might as well have a document that specifies how things will be divided ahead of time, which for the most part skips the divorce court's judgements.

The healthiest thing though would be to work through the trust issues.

 

[Stealth001]

Very few states are doing the common law marriage thing anymore. Plus you would have to engage in sin for however long it takes before the state regards you as married.

So it's better to just get the marriage license and have it legal from the very beginning.

And like I said, if you are so worried about divorce that you don't want to sign the license, you might as well get a pre-nuptual agreement, because you are already considering the possibility of divorce anyways, so you might as well have a document that specifies how things will be divided ahead of time, which for the most part skips the divorce court's judgements.

The healthiest thing though would be to work through the trust issues.

I see it as another example of the state intruding on private lives. The government isn't God. Government doesn't define marriage and cannot redefine marriage. George Washington didn't have a marriage license. Neither did Abraham Lincoln if I remember correctly. Marriage should be a private contract or agreement between two individuals.

Have you heard of marriage privatization? It's interesting...

Pastor Matt Trewhella
5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License
​

Supplimental articles:

Free Forty Million Americans: Privatize Marriage by Stephen Safranek

Welcome to PrivatizeMarriage.org! | Privatize Marriage

Privatize Marriage - Slate Magazine
​

A private agreement between private citizens. Get Government out.

 

[Luther073082]

I see it as another example of the state intruding on private lives. The government isn't God. Government doesn't define marriage and cannot redefine marriage. George Washington didn't have a marriage license. Neither did Abraham Lincoln if I remember correctly. Marriage should be a private contract or agreement between two individuals.

Have you heard of marriage privatization? It's interesting...

Free Forty Million Americans: Privatize Marriage by Stephen Safranek

Welcome to PrivatizeMarriage.org! | Privatize Marriage

Privatize Marriage - Slate Magazine
​

A private agreement between private citizens. Get Government out.

For the most part it is a private contract between two individuals. The government only gets involved when one of those individuals wishes to break the agreement.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the costs of divorce on men, I actually agree with you on that. But I've heard of marriage privitization and it's mostly a pipe dream.

Every contract no matter between two individuals or two companies or an individual and a company is subject to the judgement of the courts anyways if there is a disagreement about the terms of the contract.

On top of that the courts are naturally involved in the laws regarding the passing on of assets after death, visitation rights in hospitals, and taxes. And all of these are affected by marriage and need to be affected by marriage. So the idea that one can get government out of marriage is IMO kind of silly because of the amount of legal things that marriage affects, one would also have to get the government out of those things as well. And getting the government out of taxes is entirely impossible.

My suggestion was if you are worried about divorce and she agrees with you on this. . . get a pre-nup which specifies who gets what if you divorce. In the event of divorce this leaves the courts with very little power over how the assets are distributed.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

I don't think anyone really likes anything the government does lol. But they don't play to much of a role in weddings.

 

[Stealth001]

For the most part it is a private contract between two individuals. The government only gets involved when one of those individuals wishes to break the agreement.

Ah, but Luther, you say "For the most part"... thereby acknowledging that it isn't entirely a private contract between two individuals. Yes, the full force of government involvement is typically felt when two break the agreement. However, when this happens the GOVERNMENT and often unjust family court law takes over. We've seen excessive alimony, oppressive child support law, unjust division of property, unjust child custody decisions, and intrusions into the faith of a given side of the divorce. It's very very nasty. Never before in human history has a divorce been so costly financially or with regards to liberty.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the costs of divorce on men, I actually agree with you on that. But I've heard of marriage privitization and it's mostly a pipe dream.

Essentially the original post would be a private agreement between two individuals and their God without STATE involvement. It would be a privatized marriage. Why? Each could sue the other for damages, having lived together, and child custody, etc. IF they wanted to should they wish to terminate the union.

Every contract no matter between two individuals or two companies or an individual and a company is subject to the judgement of the courts anyways if there is a disagreement about the terms of the contract.

True. Even in common law marriages an official divorce is necssary. Even in situations wherein the couple aren't legally married there are certain laws that must be abided by. So... what's the issue?

On top of that the courts are naturally involved in the laws regarding the passing on of assets after death, visitation rights in hospitals, and taxes. And all of these are affected by marriage and need to be affected by marriage. So the idea that one can get government out of marriage is IMO kind of silly because of the amount of legal things that marriage affects, one would also have to get the government out of those things as well. And getting the government out of taxes is entirely impossible.

But isn't that up to the couple in question? Power of attorney and other legal provisions can be made between two individuals who are "unmarried" in the eyes of the state.

My suggestion was if you are worried about divorce and she agrees with you on this. . . get a pre-nup which specifies who gets what if you divorce. In the event of divorce this leaves the courts with very little power over how the assets are distributed.

But that's not the point. It's an issue of ethical principle. What if a couple wants the GOVERNMENT out of their lives as much as possible?

 

[Stealth001]

I don't think anyone really likes anything the government does lol. But they don't play to much of a role in weddings.

Oh... but the laws of the land can DESTROY you in a divorce court even when you've done no wrong.

Never before in human history has marriage been such a high stakes game. Never before in human history has a man stood to lose more should the marriage dissolve. It's oppressive and unjust. Is there any wonder why so many couples choose to cohabitate instead of marrying??? Most just want to live their lives and be left alone to be happy.

 

[CounselorForChrist]

I agree. Getting divorced is terrible depending on just how mean the divorcer wants to be about it. My feeling is if a christian chooses to divorce another christian then they should agree they do not want all the junk that comes with the divorce. No "x" amount of money, no "x" amount of items...etc. Decide ahead of time and leave it at that.

Or better yet do what I might and move to the Philippines where there are no divorce laws. Or of course do a pre-nup thing.

 

[Stealth001]

Essentially, this pastor is affirming the idea that a couple can be married in the eyes of God without state involvement.

According to this pastor all that is absolutely necessary for a union to be a "biblical marriage" is documentation of a father's permission with regards to young unmarried women, two witnesses affirming their intentions to enter holy matrimony, and a public declaration of their intentions to be regarded as husband and wife.

Marriage is therefore something governed by the family and only blessed by the church.

So this would mean that if a woman's father has no objections with her belonging to a given man, they have at least two friends who believe they are indeed united by God, and they address themselves as husband and wife.... they are "married" in the eyes of God according to all "biblical" definitions.

Would this essentially imply that many couples who are judged as "shacking up" are indeed "married" in the eyes of God?

 

[Luther073082]

Ah, but Luther, you say "For the most part"... thereby acknowledging that it isn't entirely a private contract between two individuals. Yes, the full force of government involvement is typically felt when two break the agreement. However, when this happens the GOVERNMENT and often unjust family court law takes over. We've seen excessive alimony, oppressive child support law, unjust division of property, unjust child custody decisions, and intrusions into the faith of a given side of the divorce. It's very very nasty. Never before in human history has a divorce been so costly financially or with regards to liberty.

And never has it been so popular either.

Essentially the original post would be a private agreement between two individuals and their God without STATE involvement. It would be a privatized marriage. Why? Each could sue the other for damages, having lived together, and child custody, etc. IF they wanted to should they wish to terminate the union.

Then how does this eliminate state involvement?

But isn't that up to the couple in question? Power of attorney and other legal provisions can be made between two individuals who are "unmarried" in the eyes of the state.

Still doesn't allow them to file taxes jointly. And I'm not sure about visitation rights either. Plus why do something with 50 forms when you can do it with one?

But that's not the point. It's an issue of ethical principle. What if a couple wants the GOVERNMENT out of their lives as much as possible?

I would say that couple is for the most part paranoid. I've been married for 2 and a half years and I still havn't felt the wrath or the "heavy hand" of the all so oppressive government people keep telling me about.

The state has always had an interest in defining the family unit through marriage. They've been doing that since Roman times, there was only a short time during the middle ages when the church fulfilled that function, but after the reformation it returned to secular government who did that.

 

[Stealth001]

This pastor argues that a completed Marriage Certificate in the front of a family Bible is sufficient to establish that a marriage was indeed established for legal purposes.

Is this true???

 

[Luther073082]

This pastor argues that a completed Marriage Certificate in the front of a family Bible is sufficient to establish that a marriage was indeed established for legal purposes.

Is this true???

At what time? It certainly isn't sufficent now.

 

[Stealth001]

At what time? It certainly isn't sufficent now.

I think that in some states should the couple separate someone could claim they are entitled to alimony and make their case with the marriage certificate in their Bible.

 

[Luther073082]

I think that in some states should the couple separate someone could claim they are entitled to alimony and make their case with the marriage certificate in their Bible.

It depends on the state, but not very many of them accept common law marriages like that anymore.

Here is some quick info from Wikipedia on common law marriages

The states that do allow Common Law marriages

Alabama
A valid common law marriage exists when there is capacity to enter into a marriage, the man and woman must be at least 16 with legal parental consent and present agreement or consent to be husband and wife, public recognition of the existence of the marriage, and consummation.

Colorado
The elements of a common-law marriage are, with respect to both spouses: (1) holding themselves out as husband and wife; (2) consenting to the marriage; (3) cohabitation; and (4) having the reputation in the community as being married.[7] Different sources disagree regarding the requirement of cohabitation and some indicate that consummation (i.e. post-marital sexual intercourse) is also an element of common law marriage. Colorado, by statute, no longer recognizes common law marriages entered by minors in Colorado, and also does not recognize foreign common law marriages entered into by minors, even if that marriage would have been valid where entered into under local law. See Section 14-2-109.5, Colorado Revised Statutes. The constitutionality of this limitation as applied to foreign marriages has not been tested in litigation.[8]
Colorado is the only U.S. state, other than Montana, to recognize both putative marriage and common law marriage.[9]
District of Columbia

"A marriage that is legally recognized even though there has been no ceremony and there is no certification of marriage. A common-law marriage exists if the two persons are legally free to marry, if it is the intent of the two persons to establish a marriage, and if the two are known to the community as husband and wife."
Common-law marriages have been recognized in the District of Columbia since 1931.[10]
Iowa

The three elements of a common-law marriage are: (1) the present intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declaration that the parties are husband and wife. Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 617. The public declaration or holding out to the public is considered to be the acid test of a common-law marriage.[11]
Kansas

Under Kansas Statute 23-2502, both parties to a common-law marriage must be 18 years old. The three requirements that must coexist to establish a common-law marriage in Kansas are: (1) capacity to marry; (2) a present marriage agreement; and (3) a holding out of each other as husband and wife to the public.[12]
Montana

A common-law marriage is established when a couple: "(1) is competent to enter into a marriage, (2) mutually consents and agrees to a common law marriage, and (3) cohabits and is reputed in the community to be husband and wife." [13]
New Hampshire

In New Hampshire "[P]ersons cohabiting and acknowledging each other as husband and wife, and generally reputed to be such, for the period of 3 years, and until the decease of one of them, shall thereafter be deemed to have been legally married." Thus, the state posthumously recognizes common-law marriages to ensure that a surviving spouse inherits without any difficulty.[14]
Oklahoma

The criteria for a common-law marriage are: (1) "an actual and mutual agreement... between the spouses to be husband and wife;" (2) "a permanent relationship;" (3) "an exclusive relationship, proved by cohabitation as man and wife;" (4) "and the parties to the marriage must hold themselves out publicly as husband and wife." Common law arrangements that took place in Oklahoma before November 1,1998 are recognized. The ones that occurred after that date have a nebulous character[15]. A bill to ban common-law marriage in Oklahoma failed to receive committee hearing and thus died in 2005.[16]
Rhode Island

The criteria for a common-law marriage are: (1) the parties seriously intended to enter into the husband-wife relationship; (2) the parties’ conduct is of such a character as to lead to a belief in the community that they were married.[17]
South Carolina

The criteria for a common law marriage are: (1) when two parties have a present intent (usually, but not necessarily, evidenced by a public and unequivocal declaration) to enter into a marriage contract; and (2) "a mutual agreement between the parties to assume toward each other the relation of husband and wife." [18]
Texas

Common-law marriage is known as an "informal marriage", which can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony),[19] or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. In the actual wording of the law there is no specification on the length of time that a couple must cohabitate to meet the second requirement of the 3-prong test. Under Texas law there is no required period of time of cohabitation and an informal marriage can occur if the couple lives together one day if the other elements, (an agreement to be married and holding out as married to the public) have also occurred. Likewise a couple can live together for 50 years and if they never have an agreement to be married, or hold themselves out to the public as married, their 50 year cohabitation will not make them informally married. If a couple does not commence a proceeding to prove their relationship was a marriage within two years of the end of their cohabitation and relationship there is a legal presumption that they were never informally married, but this presumption is rebuttable. In other words, even after two years a party to the relationship, or another interested party such as their estate, can seek to establish the marriage if they can overcome the presumption. Because this rule is only a presumption, and not a statute of limitations, a person in Texas that could be informally married should always go through a divorce proceeding when the relationship ceases or face possible serious legal repercussions.[20]
Utah

For a common-law marriage to be legal and valid, "a court or administrative order must establish that" the parties: (1) "are of legal age and capable of giving consent"; (2) "are legally capable of entering a solemnized marriage under the provisions of Title 30, Chap. 1 of the Utah Code; (3) "have cohabited"; (4) "mutually assume marital rights, duties, and obligations"; and (5) "hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as husband and wife" [21] In Utah, the fact that two parties are legally incapable of entering into a common law marriage, because they are already married, does not preclude criminal liability for bigamy or polygamy.

But see if you are involved in a common law marriage, that also means that you can be divorced in the same way as a cerimony marriage. So this accomplishes absolutly nothing in terms of protecting you from the divorce courts.

Also you want to talk about keeping the government out of your business. . . If the courts need to test the validity of your common law marriage, part of it may in fact be them to find out if it has been consumated.

So how would you like the government investigating to see if you and your wife had sex??

My cerimony marriage is valid just because of the license. The courts don't need to look into our private lives to determine it.

Think about it this way. With my license if the courts need to test the validity of my marriage they will just get a copy of the license, either from us or from the state of Florida faxing it over. Quick easy - no problem, this piece of paper says you are married. . . so you are in fact married.

But with you they will go asking your family and friends if they understood you to be married. . . They will ask them how long you've lived together. And then they will start asking if the two of you ever had sex. And for some purposes they may need to ask you the specific date that you had sex for the first time.

And then after establishing that you have a common law marriage. Then they will move on just as they would as if you had a licensed marriage.

So if you are all worried abou the government getting into your business, the common law marriage is NOT the way to go. It's the opposite of what you want if you ask me.

 

[Stealth001]

The pastor's opinion in the above stated article essentially presents that a couple can be married in the eyes of God and choose not to seek state licensing.

Now, I'm not against those who seek a marriage license. I just find this pastor's position interesting. He's obviously VERY libertarian in his approach. Seeing that over 40% of American couples cohabitate without being legally married... I think more people would agree with this pastor than we might think. Nearly half of American couples don't want "legality" in their relationship. They'd rather privately chart their own course.

If a couple were to be united in a "private marriage" that wasn't a "legal marriage"... what grounds would a church have to not recognize said union? As long as they aren't filing taxes and being "legally married" in the eyes of the state, they aren't really breaking any laws.

 

[Luther073082]

The pastor's opinion in the above stated article essentially presents that a couple can be married in the eyes of God and choose not to seek state licensing.

Now, I'm not against those who seek a marriage license. I just find this pastor's position interesting. He's obviously VERY libertarian in his approach. Seeing that over 40% of American couples cohabitate without being legally married... I think more people would agree with this pastor than we might think. Nearly half of American couples don't want "legality" in their relationship. They'd rather privately chart their own course.

If a couple were to be united in a "private marriage" that wasn't a "legal marriage"... what grounds would a church have to not recognize said union? As long as they aren't filing taxes and being "legally married" in the eyes of the state, they aren't really breaking any laws.

First of all the cohabitation bit, I would guess that most of those arn't Christians and don't consider themselves to be married.

Secondly on the grounds that Romans tell us to obey governmental authorities and the law.

Third on the grounds that the church is not able to enforce a marriage while the government is. Marriages have to be enforced, otherwise in many situations it would be very easy for one partner to claim all the stuff and throw their partner out on the streets. Especially if their partner is not working due to children.

What kind of marriage is it, if no one on earth can make you abide by it? In biblical times, the community made you abide by it, and the community recognized the marriage because everyone from the community attended the cerimony. Do you think that God would have called it a marriage if a guy and a girl just ran off into the woods alone and made some promises that no one on earth can establish the truth of?

Now the government fulfills the job of making people abide by their marriages.