Privatize Marriage???

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

The first article is interesting. One point was brought up by the author that I am a bit unsure about. According to him, in colonial times the two love birds needed parental permission to wed. OK, I have no reason to believe otherwise that that was the case then, but is there biblical support for requiring a couple to marry? Are a couple in their 40's still considered to be under their parents rule (especially the girl!) until the wedding? And if so, doesn't this create a situation where some ogre father could keep her daughter under HIS "subjugation" by simply not giving his permission to leave the house, ever?

Very good question Randy. In Ohio a person can marry at the age of 16. However, this requires parental or a legal guardian's consent. Also sometimes the court might require counseling for minors that are getting married. I can see requiring a minor's father to grant consent to wed. But after a person is 18, they should be able to marry without parental consent.

So Randy, what are your thoughts on the whole "privatize marriage" idea?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Norman

In Texas, common law marriage is legal - no license, no ceremony required.
I have wondered what constituted a marriage ceremony in Old Testament times; I have not been able to find out.

It was largely a business transaction. The groom to be pays a dowry to the bride to be's father. A date and time is set for the marriage. Ceremony is most likely whatever is culturally popular at the time. The two are married. However, I know that the groom and the bride traditionally the Chuppah to consumate their marriage. When both of them came out together the guests would cheer and celebrate.

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

Pretty soon homosexuals are the only ones getting married.

Lol, as Aquila points out, this is not Spiritually possible.

[Aquila]

I thought this was interesting. The Fox News article states:

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

Is this true? I read that this was because early Christian Emperors had no issue with the Roman forms of social institutions.

This brings me to a thought. What if a couple exchanged rings and declared their love and union to one another without involving the government because of the increasingly hostile relationship between government and religious faith? Would they be married in God's eyes? Should a church accept them?

[bbyrd009]

Originally Posted by Aquila

...This brings me to a thought. What if a couple exchanged rings and declared their love and union to one another without involving the government because of the increasingly hostile relationship between government and religious faith? Would they be married in God's eyes? Should a church accept them?

I note the lack of a marriage ceremony in Scripture, and say yes, they would be married in God's eyes, and it is irrelevant whether or not a church would accept them, imo. Surely irrelevant to God.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by bbyrd009

I note the lack of a marriage ceremony in Scripture, and say yes, they would be married in God's eyes, and it is irrelevant whether or not a church would accept them, imo. Surely irrelevant to God.

I'm going to do something shocking and agree with you here. I believe the 'Church' has nearly as little right to accept or not accept a marriage as big government. It is all about God and the family, which incidentally was the very first human institution God created.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I'm going to do something shocking and agree with you here. I believe the 'Church' has nearly as little right to accept or not accept a marriage as big government. It is all about God and the family, which incidentally was the very first human institution God created.

I've known churches that have welcomed couples that were not "legally married" and acknowledged their family as a family. Of course, they all encourage a legal marriage. But they'd not "disfellowship" them. One pastor I know allowed a couple to attend church and teach Bible studies for months. It wasn't until the man wanted to possibly "preach" behind the pulpit that the pastor drew the line and stated that a bylaw for leaders in the church is that they be single, or married if living with a love interest.

Personally, after having to deal with a divorce, I think the marriage laws in our country are very scary for a male. I'd almost rather manage my own relationships within the body of Christ, including who I choose as a mate, without the government meddling and placing unrealistic and unjust burdens upon me should such a relatoinship fail. I was terrified. I've seen innocent parties in a divorce loose custody of the kids, be relegated to being a weekend or every other weekend parent, have to pay child support, have to pay alimony, and have to walk a fine line with religious teaching and their kids because the courts are suspecious of cultlike behaviors. All because... they are male. I'd fully understand why a man and woman might choose to have a private arrangement and ageement in protest or to just not to get involved with the current system.

For many who have been through the troubled waters of divorce, remarriage is a very terrifying thing. One desires to personally commit, love, and have family... but the horror they went through at the hands of the legal system is something they NEVER want to experience again.

I know I'll probably remarry at some point. But the idea of getting legally married again is very scary right now. My lady friend is wonderful and I've known her since highschool. She was my best friend's girlfriend back in the day when I was only dating the girl I eventually married. She's known both me and my ex for decades. She's been married before too. So we've both been to the rodeo of a wedding, marriage, house, kids, and the pain of divorce. We've talked about just eloping when the time is right. I'd like to elope and stay a week or two in Italy. But the idea of marriage as it exists in our culture today... it's really scary.

[Aquila]

If they privatized marriage, a couple could draw up a marriage contract in accordance to their needs and interests. Any divorce proceedings would be handled in accordance to the contract in civil court as a breach of contract. Any financial settlements, and custody rights, would be determined based on actual damages legally proven to have taken place due to one partner's actions. I feel like government's involvement with the institution of marriage has contributed to the failure of marriage as an institution. Many males fear marriage because of the awesome bias against husbands in most cases. It might be a good idea to get government out of our private lives.

[Aquila]

Interesting chart. This chart illustrates the forms of marriage in the OT:

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I thought this was interesting. The Fox News article states:

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

Is this true? I read that this was because early Christian Emperors had no issue with the Roman forms of social institutions.

This brings me to a thought. What if a couple exchanged rings and declared their love and union to one another without involving the government because of the increasingly hostile relationship between government and religious faith? Would they be married in God's eyes? Should a church accept them?

Aquila,

That would be interesting if the Catholic church had honored marriages sans official ceremony, because marriage is considered one of the sacraments, and as such, must be administered by the Church.

I imagine the State first became involved in the institution of marriage because of certain legal issues (property, etc.), and also because of abuses (polygamy, incest, etc.). Regardless of whether a couple is "legally" married, I think the State still wants to assert its right of "eminent domain" over children in cases such as abuse, or as we're now seeing more in the news, parents refusing medical treatment for their children based on religious grounds.