Is a marriage license a scam?

[Rudy]

There are 5 short parts.

[n david]

Of course. The government (local/federal) shouldn't be involved with marriage at all. Marriage licenses are just another way for the government to collect another fee.

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by n david

Of course. The government (local/federal) shouldn't be involved with marriage at all. Marriage licenses are just another way for the government to collect another fee.

I read or heard it is a $50.000.000. 000 a year industry. If you count in the lawyers.

[Esaias]

Government has a role in marriage: to recognize and protect Biblical marriage and the family.

God never authorized the state to "permit" or forbid whoever the state pleases.

But the insanity will continue until Christians just start living for God, that is, actually follow the Bible in all areas of life in spite of what raging heathens say, want, or do.

[Aquila]

Yes. State Marriage Licenses are a scam. Quakers and other Christian groups have been blessing couples in the eyes of God without involving the state for centuries. Scripture tells us that God joins a man and woman together in marriage, not Caesar:

Mark 10:9 (ESV)
What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.

George Fox, founder of the Quaker movement once stated:

"For the right joining in marriage is the work of the Lord only, and not the priests' or the magistrates'; for it is God's ordinance and not man's; and therefore Friends cannot consent that they should join them together: for we marry none; it is the Lord's work, and we are but witnesses" ~ George Fox, 1669

Outsiders sometimes criticized Quaker couples for "living in sin" because they married each other without priests or ministers. Some couples choose to marry within the meeting without registering their marriages with the government, a tradition dating back to Quakerism's earliest days. If a couple later needs to prove that they are married, the Quaker wedding certificate signed by witnesses at the ceremony is sufficient in states wherein marriage such private marriages are still recognized under common law.

Here are some excerpts from "Faith and Practice": "Quaker Marriage Procedure"...

"Marriage is a sacred commitment of two people to love one another in faithful partnership with the expectation that the relationship will mature and be mutually enriching. Friends know that marriage depends on the inner experiences of the couple who marry and not on any external service or words. Thus, the ceremony in which the couple enter into this commitment is performed by the couple alone, in the presence of God, the families, and the worshiping community. Both the solemnity and the joy of the occasion are enhanced by its simplicity."

Regarding government involvement:

"While most Friends’ marriage ceremonies conform to civil law, couples who do not want, or are not eligible to contract a legal marriage occasionally ask for a ceremony of commitment or a wedding under the care of the Meeting. The Religious Society of Friends has long asserted its freedom to conduct under divine leading marriage ceremonies not conforming to civil law."

In our fellowship's statement of faith it reads:

"F. Elders serving in Christian ministry within the Apostolic Fellowship are to disengage civil marriage from Christian marriage in the performance of pastoral duties. Elders are to refuse to serve as agents of the state in marriage. Elders are to decline from signing government provided marriage licenses and/or certificates. Elders are to ask that couples seek civil marriage separately from any church-related vows, promises, commitments, and/or blessings." (Apostolic Fellowship, Section 4, Paragraph F)

This is consistent with, The Marriage Pledge:

In many jurisdictions, including many of the United States, civil authorities have adopted a definition of marriage that explicitly rejects the age-old requirement of male-female pairing. In a few short years or even months, it is very likely that this new definition will become the law of the land, and in all jurisdictions the rights, privileges, and duties of marriage will be granted to men in partnership with men, and women with women.

As Christian ministers we must bear clear witness. This is a perilous time. Divorce and co-..habitation have weakened marriage. We have been too complacent in our responses to these trends. Now marriage is being fundamentally redefined, and we are ..being tested yet again. If we fail to take clear action, we risk falsifying God’s Word.

The new definition of marriage no longer coincides with the Christian understanding of marriage between a man and woman. Our biblical faith is committed to upholding, celebrating, and furthering this understanding, which is stated many times within the Scriptures and has been repeatedly restated in our wedding ceremonies, church laws, and doctrinal standards for centuries. To continue with church practices that intertwine government marriage with Christian marriage will implicate the Church in a false definition of marriage.

Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates. We will ask couples to seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings. We will preside only at those weddings that seek to establish a Christian marriage in accord with the principles ..articulated and lived out from the beginning of the Church’s life.

Please join us in this pledge to separate civil marriage from Christian marriage by adding your name.

Drafted by:

The Reverend Ephraim Radner

The Reverend Christopher Seitz

Source: https://www.firstthings.com/marriage-pledge

However, please note, this is a minority position among more libertarian or liberal groups. Most mainline conservative teachers will not recognize a couple as married in the eyes of God until they have the State Marriage License and State issued Marriage Certificate.

[Birddog]

Yes, the government might need to stay out of the marriage business. But reality does need to surface here.

If you are going to follow the train of thought that is being suggested here then there are some things to be considered also.

Like....

Property ownership.

Children.

Retirement and pensions....

If you are willing to totally revamp you life the go ahead.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Birddog

Yes, the government might need to stay out of the marriage business. But reality does need to surface here.

If you are going to follow the train of thought that is being suggested here then there are some things to be considered also.

Like....

Property ownership.

Children.

Retirement and pensions....

If you are willing to totally revamp you life the go ahead.

Excellent point.

To many, those things aren't important to them.

However, issues relating to property ownership can be handled through wills, powers of attorney, and (in some states) cohabitation agreements.

Issues relating to children are already handled routinely by the courts in most states seeing that many couples have children without having entered into a civil marriage. One would want to check their state's laws on this issue because laws can vary from state to state.

Rewarded benefits regarding retirement and pensions after the death of a spouse are the only things that cannot typically be handled outside of a civil marriage.

To those in a civil marriage, this would indeed be a terrible revamping of their lives. I wouldn't recommend it. If one is in a civil marriage it is best to stay there.

But for those who are not in a civil marriage, I'd still recommend that they seek one. However, I do understand that many couples for various reasons do not desire to have a civil marriage. Reasons I've encountered are:

- Divorcees are often leery of re-entering a civil marriage if the family court system and divorce statutes raked them over the coals or imposed a perceived injustice upon them. For example, I know of a man whose wife abandoned him and refused to file for divorce. He didn't have the money for an attorney and she basically kept him in limbo for over 5 years. She moved away, dated, and moved on with her life without a care in the world. He was in a living hell begging churches, attorneys, and friends for help. Eventually she wanted to remarry and agreed to a disillusion on the cheap. But he was in limbo for over five years before she relented. Had she not done this, he fears he'd still be legally married to her. This man flat out refuses to get a civil marriage again. lol Others report shady tactics by attorneys and biased courts that cost them multiplied thousands of dollars and wrecked everything they had worked for and crushed a family business they had inherited. As this man said when I asked if he'd ever marry his girlfriend, "Nope. Never again." People who have had these unfortunate experiences in the court system commonly prefer a Commitment Ceremony.

- Retirees often run the risk of losing various pension and Social Security benefits upon entering a civil marriage. For many, these benefits are a matter of economic or medical survival. They do not feel that it is entirely fair that the benefits gained after being faithful for decades to a now deceased spouse should just be erased upon remarrying. Especially when losing such benefits would cause significant hardship relating to finances and much needed medical coverage. They feel that until the laws change to protect their interests and honor the time and dedication they put into a previous marriage they are best off having a Commitment Ceremony.

- Mature couples who understand the civil marriage statutes often fear getting entangled in a civil marriage due to the liabilities it brings. Many have had parents, friends, or loved one's experience the horrors mentioned above. These individuals often refused to get married because they often feared the same could happen to them. Now that they are more mature and getting older they don't want to be alone. They want to settle down. However, they are still rather afraid of what could happen if the marriage fails. It is rather common for these individuals to ask about Commitment Ceremonies.

Some churches and religious bodies are compassionate and accommodating for these couples. That's why they perform Commitment Ceremonies to unite such couples in the eyes of God, even if they encourage civil marriage. Ultimately, they leave the decision up to the couple in question.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Birddog

Yes, the government might need to stay out of the marriage business. But reality does need to surface here.

If you are going to follow the train of thought that is being suggested here then there are some things to be considered also.

Like....

Property ownership.

Children.

Retirement and pensions....

If you are willing to totally revamp you life the go ahead.

Which is why I mentioned inheritance issues need to be worked out ahead of time.Contractual payments like insurance, retirement, etc can be handled by stating beneficiaries, etc.

It all gets messy though if someone files suit, then everyone has to prove everything and a notation in the Family Bible probably doesn't hold as much weight as it used to.

Of course, one could do it like the wealthy do - establish Trusts that manage everything according to by laws declared by the head of the family. That's how nobility rolls.

[Aquila]

The Quaker couple who originally introduced me to the idea of marrying without involving the government pointed out a passage of Scripture to me that they believe most Christians don't consider when they think about marriage. They point to I Corinthians 6...

I Corinthians 6:1-8 (ESV)
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!

They believe that by entering a civil marriage, a couple is legally obligating themselves to the civil court system and its statutes. Thus issues relating to divorce or other disputes must go through a secular civil court, putting them to open shame before an unbelieving society. They feel that as believers they are able to judge in themselves, and with the assistance of their local meeting, the issues they might face in their union should they be confronted with troubled waters or the need for separation. They'd rather suffer wrong and even be defrauded before allowing their union to become legally entangled in the civil court system.

And so, for this reason they feel the purist form of Christian marriage is government-free.

[Miss Scarlett]

What is the big deal over marriage license? Isn't it a lay to have them to make the commitment legal? I believe in them in order for a number of reasons which does benefit the spouse tremendously.

Are you looking for a way to shack up and say you are a Christian, or what is the deal? Just my uneducated opinion.