Statism and Marriage

[Dante]

Marriage has always been a religious institution. Governments have siezed control of marriage over the past few decades in the name of protecting its citizens, preventing incest in some cases, and also in the effort to prevent the spread of various diseases.

With that said, just because man's government has siezed control of this sacred institution does it mean that we as the Church should submit to the man-made rules and regulations set forth by the State? I believe the church is the sole and only authority to dictate the definition and execution of marriage, not the state! In other words, because marriage has been defined by the constructs of religion, it should stay that way. The government cannot redfine marriage, or say who anyone can or cannot marry. That power rests within the authority of God's Kingdom, the church.

So, why are so many Christians submissive to the guidelines of statist marriage rules and regulations?

[MarcBee]

Originally Posted by Dante

d

So, why are so many Christians submissive to the guidelines of statist marriage rules and regulations?

...because churches accept government financial subsidies in the form of tax free 501c3 status. Cut that chain of dependency, and churches will have the right (and the inclination) to go their own way.

[Pressing-On]

This American Thinker article is very well written. I was wondering if anybody was going to fight for anything sane "or natural" in this current social battle.

Gay Marriage and Legal Surrealism
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...0j0GEU.twitter

[Dedicated Mind]

the right response is to bury your head in the sand and pretend the issue doesn't exist.

[Cindy]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This American Thinker article is very well written. I was wondering if anybody was going to fight for anything sane "or natural" in this current social battle.

Gay Marriage and Legal Surrealism
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...0j0GEU.twitter

Excellent article.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Dante

Marriage has always been a religious institution. Governments have siezed control of marriage over the past few decades in the name of protecting its citizens, preventing incest in some cases, and also in the effort to prevent the spread of various diseases.

With that said, just because man's government has siezed control of this sacred institution does it mean that we as the Church should submit to the man-made rules and regulations set forth by the State? I believe the church is the sole and only authority to dictate the definition and execution of marriage, not the state! In other words, because marriage has been defined by the constructs of religion, it should stay that way. The government cannot redfine marriage, or say who anyone can or cannot marry. That power rests within the authority of God's Kingdom, the church.

So, why are so many Christians submissive to the guidelines of statist marriage rules and regulations?

I agree with your overall premise. However, I want to expand upon it a little. In your post you stated...

Marriage has always been a religious institution.

I believe the church is the sole and only authority to dictate the definition and execution of marriage, not the state!

The problem I have with your statement is this... marriage isn't even under the authority of the church. Nor is marriage defined by the church. The reason I say this is based upon Christ's own statement concerning marriage.

Mark 10:9
"What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Marriage originated in Eden. God formed man of the dust of the earth and woman from man. They were given unto one another by God. There wasn't any human government, there wasn't any religion, there wasn't any church, and there wasn't any clergy. We see no ceremony, ritual, or sacrement. We see God giving man and woman to one another to be mates. For this reason, choosing a mate (husband, wife, life partner, whatever you want to call it) is a "natural right" endowed by one's creator... and even initiated by one's creator. God, who is love, brings two human beings together in the bonds of His very essence... love.

Marriage is then a "common right" and has been regarded as so since the most ancient of times. In the OT a man could have permission from a woman's father to marry her, take her, and declare her his wife. The father's permission was only necessary if she were still living under her father's authority. If living on her own, such as with Ruth, a man could take a woman as his wife before God out in his field. No government, religion, church, or clergy necessary. As a result, every ancient culture saw marriage as a private arrangement between private individuals and/or families under common law; hense "common law marriage". It was the state church that began regulating marriage with licenses during the Middle Ages to prevent people from marrying below their class and thereby scattering the inheritance of the wealthy to the masses of commoners. In the early colonies of America marriage licenses were unheard of and marriage was once again an issue of common right/common law. A man and woman could declare themselves husband and wife out on their farm. Clergy and the church could bless their union or condemn it... nevertheless, they were regarded as being married eyes of God. As whites and blacks began marrying, the state began to issue marriage licenses to prevent interracial marriage. Soon, every state required a license for anyone seeking to marry. As a result, the state took over the private social arrangement of marriage.

Thus, in my opinion "marriage" is a private commitment between each couple and/or their family before God. No state, church, or clergy necessary.

Quakers have an interesting tradition. Historically they "self-officiated" their marriages. Having no clergy, and believing in the separation of church and state, a couple would declare their intent to marry. If nothing was found to present a case as to why they shouldn't be married in the community, the couple could stand, give their "promises" (vows), and take one another as husband and wife before God, friends, and family. No clergy. No filing with the state. States wherein common law marriage is still recognize acknowlege these marriages as legally binding. States that do not recognize common law marriage do not.

So, I argue that "marriage" isn't under any authority other than the couple themselves, and perhaps their families in various circumstances. And in all cases, the arrangement is entirely private.

Hope that made sense. God bless.

[Pressing-On]

Aquila, I just read this today. The author is an atheist, but she makes a good point.

Personally, I believe this whole issue is not about "gay rights" per se. I believe that if the left gets its way, it will not simply be the “right to marry.” It will be the right to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Dissecting the Argument for Traditional Marriage

I know social conservatives would never suggest it, at least not as I’ve stated it here, because it does not forbid same sex unions, per se. Admittedly, I intentionally avoided saying anything about that. The government has no place refusing such unions, because the state’s part in the process is purely the legalities – that is the case now, and should remain that way. Churches would be free to forbid those unions at will, and that would be protecting the sanctity of marriage – the state should not be able to dictate the actions of churches when it comes to the recognition of same sex marriage. Religion and politics do not mix well. This nation was founded because of that fact, but too many of us tend to forget that, or twist it to our own purposes. Too many people forget that the “separation of church and state” was meant to be a two-way street. It is meant to not only protect churches from interference by government, but also protect government from the same by churches. It was a good theory over 200 years ago, and it still is now.

http://politichicks.tv/column/dissec...onal-marriage/

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Aquila, I just read this today. The author is an atheist, but she makes a good point.

Personally, I believe this whole issue is not about "gay rights" per se. I believe that if the left gets its way, it will not simply be the “right to marry.” It will be the right to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

Yes exactly! It's already in progress.

"Before getting into the details of what appears to be an incredible hoax, it’s important to understand the nature of this very dangerous bill, which would make it illegal for a licensed therapist to offer professional help to a minor with unwanted same-sex attractions, even if the minor had parental permission."

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/...-jersey-senate

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Aquila, I just read this today. The author is an atheist, but she makes a good point.

Personally, I believe this whole issue is not about "gay rights" per se. I believe that if the left gets its way, it will not simply be the “right to marry.” It will be the right to silence anyone who disagrees with them.

So true. That's why marriage should be taken back to the private domain.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Yes exactly! It's already in progress.

"Before getting into the details of what appears to be an incredible hoax, it’s important to understand the nature of this very dangerous bill, which would make it illegal for a licensed therapist to offer professional help to a minor with unwanted same-sex attractions, even if the minor had parental permission."

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/...-jersey-senate

The GOVERNMENT is the problem... not gays per se. They should be allowed to live as they choose. However, when involving GOVERNMENT, everyone is forced to comply with various standards.

We should privatize marriage. Get the STATE out of our private relationships and associations.