Marriage.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Submission to HIGHER authority is required. Thus, if a court requires one thing, but a superior court requires something else, the ruling of the superior court is to be followed, not the lower court.

And the highest authority is God. Marriage was instituted by God prior to the existence of the state. Thus marriage is governed primarily by God's Law (Word), and only secondarily by the state as it fulfills its God-ordained responsibility of promoting good and punishing evil. And therefore the state's requirements must be facilitative, and not interfere with, God's design for and regulation of marriage.

So then, the state does not create a marriage, nor does the state dissolve a marriage, it can only confirm what God has ordained, and prohibit was God has prohibited. Anything beyond that is usurpation of authority, is an act of rebellion against God, and is to be rebuked by the church.

Compliance with secular edicts that go beyond Biblically defined mandates is often expedient, but must never interfere with obedience to God, and must not be seen as replacements of Biblical requirements.

Let's say that a man and woman are Quakers, or members of a house church. And a Quaker or house church elder performs a covenant marriage for them. What law of the land was broken?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

You believe Romans 13 isn't about government?

What is Peter speaking of in 1 Peter 2:13, when he states we should submit to the ordinances of man?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

And yet Peter wrote that we should submit to the ordinances of man. The only exclusion I've read where we are not to follow the law is if it would compromise our faith. Signing a marriage license does not compromise one's faith.

One can say that it doesn't compromise one's own faith. Because interpretations of the Bible differ.

For example, there is the way Quakers view swearing, oaths, and testimony...

Quakers do not believe swearing or making oaths, so they refuse to swear in on court proceedings. They also do not offer sworn testimony, they will only promise to affirm or deny with a "yay or nay" answer. They feel the court system is therefore sinful and is not honoring God. They also believe that to "solemnly swear" is to imply that one could tend to be untruthful otherwise, thus they believe that it damages Christian testimony. This is why Quakers seek to avoid the civil courts of this unbelieving secular society if at all possible.

In civil marriage, the "vows" are also something they take issue with. They do not make "vows" at their weddings because they believe it implies that one would otherwise break a promise. And so they offer "promises" to one another.

Biblically speaking, marriage is between a man and a woman. In addition, to divorce and remarry is adultery (some interpretations of Scripture believe in exceptions). The biblical marriage never required an agent of the state or a state court to dissolve a marriage. Biblical marriage also requires grounds for a divorce in order to affirm the innocent party and identify the offending party. Also, the Bible explicitly states that God joins a man and woman together, not the state. Biblical marriage is a covenant relationship between a man, a woman, and God. It is a private contract, agreement, or arrangement. Jewish traditions that include a written contract (a ketubah) allow the contract to stipulate all expectations of marriage, grounds for parting, and terms of any separation. These expectations, grounds, and terms are drafted by the husband and his father (and sometimes with the aid of a rabbi). The bride to be and her father review the terms and must choose to agree or disagree, and present any clauses to be included or removed. Thus the marriage is entirely on the couple's terms or their parent's terms. No outside power other than Scripture can determine those terms and conditions.

Civil marriage is quite different. The civil marriage laws permits divorce and remarriage at will, which is a violation of Scripture. The state permits "no fault" divorce, which is a violation of Scripture. Civil marriage contains vows (which as noted above is against the interpretations of many old world forms of Christianity). Civil marriage is a binding secular contract between a man, a woman, and the state; God isn't a party legally included. Should the marriage fail, civil marriage requires one to go before unbelieving secular courts, which is a violation of Scripture according to old world interpretations of Scripture (such as those held by Quakers, German Baptists, and others). In a civil marriage it is the state that sets all terms and conditions, not the couple. In addition, civil courts allow for gay marriage.

The unbiblical nature of civil marriage has been challenging to Christians since its beginnings. Christians and churches have taken issue with kings and royalty who used their state authority to authorize, partake in, and legalize marriages that were unbiblical. Churches have taken issue with the institutional controls of the state churches in various countries that refuse to acknowledge the marriages of those who are not a part of that given Christian religion. For example, in England marriages were legally sanctioned by the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church, being a state church, set legal recognition strictly for Anglican marriages. Doing this meant that all parties were required to be married by an Anglican Priest. This meant that marriages among Jews, Quakers, Catholics, and other non-Anglican religions were denounced as being illicit. And so this is why many early writings about Jews, Quakers, Catholics, and other non-Anglican groups included the charge of "fornication" and "licentious behavior". In nations wherein the church and state were mingled, this was a serious charge that could lead to fines, corporal punishment, or even execution. And so the civil court systems in these countries used institutionalized marriage as a means to persecute other religions. Quakerism was founded during these dark times. And it is for this reason that Quakers vehemently stand against any government regulation of marriage by reserving their right to perform marriages that are essentially outside of the authority of civil law and government. It, to them, is an issue of human liberty. The right to marry in God's eyes, as they see it, is a natural right of every human being. It isn't a civil right granted by government in which one must be "licensed" to partake in.

That brings us to an interesting point. The "licensing" of marriage. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." Therefore, by passing laws that require a marriage license, states deemed marriage in and of itself... "illegal". Think about that. The government made the entire covenant of marriage illegal. And so, states began to refuse to recognize marriages under common law, which was the oldest form of marriage going farther back than ancient Greece. This seized marriage and took it out of the hands of couples, churches, parents, and communities... firmly placed it into the government's grasp. But why did the government do this? History tells us why.

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal. Remember, only mixed couples had to qualify for a marriage license to overcome laws prohibiting mixed marriages. Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

So, the "marriage license" is essentially an old holdout of institutionalized racism that was expanded to include all citizens. Quakers have always been known as pacifists and strong abolitionists, advocates for social justice and equal rights for all men, seeing that we are all created equal by our Creator and are endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights. And to Quakers, the right to marry is a natural law granted by the Creator, and so any state institution that impedes that is violating human liberty. When marriage licensing began in America, Quakers denounced it's racist and as in England, rejected state control over man's natural right to marry. As states abolished common law marriage, the natural right to marry without needing to appeal to or involve the government was abolished. But Quakers hold strong, still performing unions that are not registered with the state.

Many would ask is it illegal for Quakers and other libertarian minded Christians to do this? Not if the minister or elder involved isn't licensed by the state. Most don't realize that once a minister is licensed by the state they become an "agent of the state" and must uphold all state statutes as part of their ministry. Many ministers are discovering how treacherous this truly is now that gays have a civil right to civil marriage. This is why Quakers and other libertarian minded Christian ministers traditionally DO NOT seek to be state licensed ministers. As long as the elder or minister isn't an agent of the state, they can indeed bless couples as being married in the eyes of God without registering the union with the state.

[Aquila]

For some, this is an issue of human liberty. For example, this rather conservative couple chose to draft their own marriage contract and were married outside of civil marriage: http://ncrenegade.com/education/how-...out-a-license/

For others, civil marriage has consequences. Some who are currently unmarried qualify for medical insurance that helps them with rather serious medical bills, the cost of necessary medication, and procedures. When a couple gets a civil marriage, they are viewed by the government as a single civilly incorporated entity, and so their incomes and assets are combined. For many, this would cause them to no longer qualify for the medical insurance that they currently have and would essentially bankrupt them and have a serious impact on their overall health, and even shorten their lifespan.

Others have had civil marriages and have been through the terrible process of a divorce in the civil courts. They have experienced the injustice of a system that abides by civil laws that are unbiblical. Excessive attorney's fees, court costs, litigation, has often nearly bankrupted both men and women who were forced into a rather brutal divorce by a merciless spouse. When courts required legal grounds for divorce, civil marriage was truly something that offered security to couples. You see, when grounds for divorce needed to be established in a court of law, the guilty party was often penalized by being denied spousal support or child custody entirely or in part. The innocent party was also often compensated for emotional damage and the financial loss they would incur due to the divorce. But all of this changed when states abolished the need to establish grounds for a divorce and passed laws allowing for what is called, "no fault divorce". What "no fault divorce" means is that your spouse can choose to be unfaithful, or just choose to one day simply walk out on you after years of marriage... and they are automatically entitled to half of everything. If there is a difference of income and your spouse makes less than you, they are automatically entitled to spousal support. Some state laws also favor the mother with regards to child custody, even if she were the guilty party! And even more disturbing, some divorce courts are HOSTILE to Christian spouses. Many stories can be found wherein the civil courts essentially limited or denied custody to a Christian because their spouse brought up inflated charges of spiritual and psychological abuse from the Christian's religion or house of worship. With "no fault divorce" statutes in most states, civil marriage has ceased to offer the security it once offered, now it is truly a serious legal liability. Biblical marriage was supposed to provide security. And so civil marriage is unbiblical in this respect too.

It should be interesting to note that since the civil governments have passed laws allowing for "no fault" divorce, and statutes that cause divorce to be far more damaging to the innocent party, the number of couples who choose NOT to get a civil married before living together has increased, even among otherwise upstanding citizens. Fewer people want a civil marriage and for those who do enter into civil marriages, the numbers concerning divorce have increased.

For these reasons, among others, an increasing number of Christians are considering "covenant marriage" over "civil marriage". They do not want the GOVERNMENT controlling the terms and condition of their unions. They'd rather weather the outcome of separation privately, whatever it might be, than to have to have the court liquidate them and enforce unbiblical statutes upon their lives and finances. They want to take back control of their unions, their families, their finances, and their lives.

Remember, covenant marriages are not "illegal". There is no statute against performing them unless you're a licensed minister functioning as an agent of the state. There is no penalty under law for being in a covenant marriage. With powers of attorney, wills, and cohabitation agreements, a couple can secure the vast majority of rights a couple has in a civil marriage. However, control of these rights is in the hands of the couple, and not the government.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

You believe Romans 13 isn't about government?

What is Peter speaking of in 1 Peter 2:13, when he states we should submit to the ordinances of man?

Is there a law that prohibits an Quaker elder or Christian minister from performing covenant marriages & commitment ceremonies? If there isn't, what ordinance of man is being broken?

[Aquila]

This might be of interest:

LewRockwell.comThe Racist Origins of Government Marriage in America
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog...ge-in-america/

Ryan McMaken

Marriage licenses came about in the late 19th century to prevent mixed-race marriages. That should be appalling to anyone, and is in my opinion the strongest argument to privatize marriage.

The linked article makes many points similar to those I made in my article from Friday. And it notes that:


The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos.

At the heart of it all, predictably, is the urge to control the lives of others. White people might marry black people! Horror of horrors. Therefore, the state must get involved. No doubt these arguments in favor of more government meddling were made with an overlying patina of “freedom.” Just as the modern anti-immigration crowd today argues that we must destroy freedom in order to save it, the old racist proponents of government marriage likely argued that we must abolish freedom in marriage or the “Negro agitatuhs” and their dusky-skinned allies will destroy freedom. Conservative “logic” at its best.

[Aquila]

Here's another article of interest:

Libertarian News
A libertarian news aggregation service.

Marriage Licenses Are A Racist Crime Against Humanity
https://www.libertariannews.org/2011...inst-humanity/

by Michael Suede • February 1, 2011


A pastor tells us why the State has no business issuing licenses for a religious establishment:


George Washington was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines “marriage license” as, “A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Intermarry” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages.”

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me “10,000 miles.”) Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

Being granted permission to marry someone by a gang of criminal thieves is the lowest form of submission to State authority a plebe could ever engage in.

I reject the notion that the State has the authority to sanction my marriage.

You should too.

Of course, the First Amendment doesn’t matter since the US Constitution has about as much worth as used toilet paper, but I’ll post it here for you to consider anyways.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Just in case you don’t understand what the word establishment means:


a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws

[Aquila]

Unlike many libertarian minded liberals and conservatives, I do not advocate abolishing civil marriage. I see it as a government program for couples who wish to receive various government benefits. And this program works for some and not for others. It probably works best if there is significant property and large sums of money involved. However, I think civil marriage should be regarded as optional for couples in covenant. If a couple commits and enters covenant with God, and wears wedding bands or promise rings, they should be regarded as being married in the eyes of God. The legality of their marriage should be left entirely up to them.

I tend to agree in part with C.S. Lewis:

“A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not (p.112).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Is there a law that prohibits an Quaker elder or Christian minister from performing covenant marriages & commitment ceremonies? If there isn't, what ordinance of man is being broken?

Per Ohio law, couples must apply for a marriage license and have the marriage officiated by a licensed minister or judge. It does not appear that Ohio recognizes private marriages, per their statute. I haven't looked at other states, but I would guess there are more with the same kind of laws.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3101

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Unlike many libertarian minded liberals and conservatives, I do not advocate abolishing civil marriage. I see it as a government program for couples who wish to receive various government benefits. And this program works for some and not for others. It probably works best if there is significant property and large sums of money involved. However, I think civil marriage should be regarded as optional for couples in covenant. If a couple commits and enters covenant with God, and wears wedding bands or promise rings, they should be regarded as being married in the eyes of God. The legality of their marriage should be left entirely up to them.

I tend to agree in part with C.S. Lewis:

“A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not (p.112).” Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

I can agree with that. My point was you can't cherry pick the Bible and say 1 Cor 13 prohibits divorce court, but ignore 1 Peter 2 which tells us to submit to the ordinances of man.