When is a couple considered married?

[tonychanyt]

There are at least four perspectives:

1. From God's perspective, Mark 10:

9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

Genesis 24:

67 Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife.

People today do not accept this definition of marriage because they want to have sex without the commitment of marriage.

2. From an OT law's perspective, NIV Exodus 22:

16“If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.

In this case, her father may intervene:

17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

3. From the couple's inter-personal perspective, Ephesians 5:

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

The two are committed to each other. There are practical consequences. The husband gives himself up for his woman.

4. From society's perspective, when you have the civic legal paper, you are married.

Would it be possible to just get married in church without involving the state at all?

Yes, e.g., in the province of New Brunswick in Canada.

 

[David Kent]

There are at least four perspectives:

1. From God's perspective, Mark 10:


Genesis 24:

People today do not accept this definition of marriage because they want to have sex without the commitment of marriage.

2. From an OT law's perspective, NIV Exodus 22:

In this case, her father may intervene:


3. From the couple's inter-personal perspective, Ephesians 5:


The two are committed to each other. There are practical consequences. The husband gives himself up for his woman.

4. From society's perspective, when you have the civic legal paper, you are married.

Would it be possible to just get married in church without involving the state at all?

Yes, e.g., in the province of New Brunswick in Canada.

The question I would ask is "should the state be involved at all? In England people were married in church, and the records were kept in the church they were married in. In the CofE there were parish records and the Archbishop had transcripts, or sometimes the Archdeacon. In disenting churches they were held in the church. Here in the weald of Kent three Baptist churches held joint records, one births, the second deaths and the third marriages. In 1837, the Government took over the recording of them and you had to register them with the local registry office. That made it much easier to trace your genealogy.

 

[Paidiske]

Would it be possible to just get married in church without involving the state at all?

Yes, e.g., in the province of New Brunswick in Canada.

Possible, yes, but I would say inadvisable. Secular marriage law protects us in various ways (for example, from coercion into marriage, from underaged marriage, from fraudulent marriage, and so on).

 

[FenderTL5]

Possible, yes, but I would say inadvisable. Secular marriage law protects us in various ways (for example, from coercion into marriage, from underaged marriage, from fraudulent marriage, and so on).

I agree.

When I was in catechism I asked a similar question of our then Priest. There was quite a bit of discussion surrounding the concept of Holy Matrimony within the Church as opposed to the legal ramification of secular marriage.

Personally, I only speak for myself not with the authority of the Church or government(s), it wouldn't bother me if our Church/clergy were to withdraw from the legal, governmental role of marriage and only focus on the Spiritual joining. It would make a lot of the political/legal issues and questions a lot less messy. However, it wouldn't be without it's own challenges as well.

 

[Paidiske]

Personally, I only speak for myself not with the authority of the Church or government(s), it wouldn't bother me if our Church/clergy were to withdraw from the legal, governmental role of marriage and only focus on the Spiritual joining. It would make a lot of the political/legal issues and questions a lot less messy. However, it wouldn't be without it's own challenges as well.

This is how it works in France and other places with a French-influenced legal system. The legal marriage takes place first in the registry office, and then the church ceremony afterwards, if the couple wishes. From my point of view it solves a lot of problems, and I have argued for that here, but so far to no avail!

 

[FenderTL5]

This is how it works in France and other places with a French-influenced legal system. The legal marriage takes place first in the registry office, and then the church ceremony afterwards, if the couple wishes. From my point of view it solves a lot of problems, and I have argued for that here, but so far to no avail!

At least you're (we're) not alone in that thought.
imho, when a member of the clergy says, "by the power vested in me by the state of_____", at that moment, there is no such thing as separation of Church and state. It benefits neither Church nor state.
I'd be willing to lobby in agreement with you in this.

 

[Paidiske]

imho, when a member of the clergy says, "by the power vested in me by the state of_____", at that moment, there is no such thing as separation of Church and state.

Fortunately, we don't have to say anything like that here.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Years ago, when I was still Lutheran, there was a couple who were both disabled who wanted to marry. However, because US law is so stupid, they would both lose their benefits including the assisted living center they lived at. So our pastor married them in a small ceremony but they never applied for the legal paperwork. So married in the eyes of God and the church and let the state handle its own affairs. I think that's the approach more clergy should be making.

 

[Paidiske]

That would be illegal for me to do, here. It's been a while since I read the legislation and I forget the exact wording, but basically you can't do something which closely resembles a legal wedding, but isn't.

 

[David Kent]

I

That would be illegal for me to do, here. It's been a while since I read the legislation and I forget the exact wording, but basically you can't do something which closely resembles a legal wedding, but isn't.

I think it would be illegal here as well. To make it legal there are certain phrases you have to use. If you have used them in a church before then and you have someone who us qualified as a registrar, then you cant use them again in a legal ceremony.
You can get married in a registry office. An anglian vicar has the authority to conduct marriages, in an independent church you can get married and have a visiting registrar, or you can nominate a member to be an acting registrar, there us a name for it but I can't think what it is.

In my former church, there was a dispute between the minister and the responsible person as to whether he could use a particular format. In the end they called the registry office and found that it was OK to use it.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

There is at least one Orthodox priest who refuses to sign the license so the couple get their license signed at the courthouse. This way he is not acting as an agent of the state. It keeps him out of any same-sex controversy.

 

[Paidiske]

I think it would be illegal here as well. To make it legal there are certain phrases you have to use.

No, I don't mean, if I did it, it wouldn't be a legal marriage. I mean it is illegal to do something which looks like a legal marriage ceremony, but isn't. I think the concern is that nobody be misled or defrauded into believing that there is a legal wedding, when there isn't.

 

[Bobber]

Years ago, when I was still Lutheran, there was a couple who were both disabled who wanted to marry. However, because US law is so stupid, they would both lose their benefits including the assisted living center they lived at. So our pastor married them in a small ceremony but they never applied for the legal paperwork. So married in the eyes of God and the church and let the state handle its own affairs. I think that's the approach more clergy should be making.

Very interesting.