Marriage Privatization:

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Yes, many churches are very statist and will see you as "living in sin". However, the Law doesn't require couples to enter a civil marriage. Quakers arrange and bless marriages that do not conform to civil law all the time. Also, most states had Common Law Marriage statutes on the books, but abolished it. Your state still might. I've never had a church ask to see a civil marriage certificate. You might want to call around to various churches around you and explain your situation. Many perform "commitment ceremonies" (Quaker marriage) for couples seeking spiritual marital commitment outside of civil law. You might be surprised. While looking into this topic I talked to several pastors. Two (one Baptist/Reformed and the other UPCI) said that while they would encourage civil marriage, they'd not make an issue of it as long as the couple didn't. The rest were pretty stuck on the state's institution of civil marriage.

Get out a phone book and list what churches you'd be interested in attending. Then call them and explain your circumstance to each pastor. You might be surprised by how many churches might welcome you.

Well, there is only one church I could attend here. But thanks for the input.

[Servant's <3]

I was in a service at a church that isn't my home church this Sunday Night as my church was not having service and an older gentleman (I think he said he was in his 70s) with the pastor's approval asked this other older lady who he had been seeing to marry him. It was out of the ordinary... She said yes.

I'm sure many of the women saw it as sweet and what not but the person sitting next to me pondered on what if she had said no.... I responded that a wise person doesn't ask that sort of question unless they already know what the answer is going to be.

Now, I have no idea if this couple will apply for a marriage license from the government (I would assume so if for no other reason than the tax implications) I have refrained from voting on this poll because I genuinely haven't a clue as to what I will be doing should God decide I should be married.

I of course feel the government has no say in who I marry or anything to do with my marriage but I would still want the tax breaks afforded to those that are married. It's an interesting issue for me that I see as very divisive. I still don't know what I would do.

[good samaritan]

Abraham denied Sarai being his wife because of expedience. He felt his life would be in jeopardy if he was up front with their marital status. honestly, I am not sure of the marital laws in such situations to know how they would view it. I think there is a problem with the system if it gives incentives to not be wed though.

[good samaritan]

I understand it is illegal for ministers to perform weddings without the issuing of a license. I personally feel that just because the government issues marriage licenses to homosexuals, we shouldn't become law breakers. Just because homosexuals can now be married and recognized by the U.S. government doesn't mean that I have to enter into a homosexual relationship. If the government tries to force us to commit sins against our religion that is different. This privatization of marriage is usually because of financial expedience than it is about religious convictions. As for those who are in a dilemna over needed healthcare coverage and how it is affected by marriage, my prayers go out to you. We live in perilous times.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I understand it is illegal for ministers to perform weddings without the issuing of a license. I personally feel that just because the government issues marriage licenses to homosexuals, we shouldn't become law breakers. Just because homosexuals can now be married and recognized by the U.S. government doesn't mean that I have to enter into a homosexual relationship. If the government tries to force us to commit sins against our religion that is different. This privatization of marriage is usually because of financial expedience than it is about religious convictions. As for those who are in a dilemna over needed healthcare coverage and how it is affected by marriage, my prayers go out to you. We live in perilous times.

Agreed, if it would be illegal for a minister who is licensed with the state to perform weddings without the issuance of a marriage license, that minister is bound by law to sign off on the state marriage license, seeing that he acts as an "agent of the state". However, what if a fellowship's elders are not licensed by the government? For example, what if their constitution reads:

C. The network shall recognize elders, educate believers in a manner consistent with the requirements of Holy Scripture, and teach and preach the Gospel message both publicly and from house to house. Elders are not to be licensed by any state or government body.

... and...

C. Elders recognized by the network shall meet the biblical requirements of 1st Timothy 3:1-7. Elders are older men who, by virtue of their life experiences, are recognized as having a measure of wisdom which much surpasses the knowledge of inexperienced younger men, and are therefore influential members of the Apostolic Fellowship. It takes time for elders to emerge within the church, for spiritual maturity is a process which develops gradually. (1 Timothy 3:6) Elders have not been given any measure of authority over the Ekklesia, but instead function as shepherds, keeping a protective eye out for enemies that might seek to harm the church, and examining the doctrine of those who claim to be Christians. (Acts 20:9-31; Titus 1:9) The manner in which elders are to lead is not by exercising authority, but by being living examples. (1 Peter 5:3) Elders are not to be licensed by any state or government body.

... and...

F. Elders serving in Christian ministry within the Apostolic Fellowship are to disengage civil and 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 certificates. Elders are to ask that couples seek civil marriage separately from their church-related vows and blessings.

This fellowship is much like the early Quakers. A simple fellowship of friends who are seeking no incorporation or licensing from the government. If the elders bless a couple in the eyes of God and advise that they seek "civil marriage" separately should the couple so desire, are they "sinning"?

[Aquila]

Speaking of the Quakers, their manual of faith and practice states:

"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."

"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."

Believe it or not, for some, the right to marry on one's own terms, without government involvement, is regarded as a sacred right.

Should churches throw out couples who have rejected the social construct of "civil marriage" for a more personal and spiritual form of "covenant marriage"?

[good samaritan]

Should churches throw out couples who have rejected the social construct of "civil marriage" for a more personal and spiritual form of "covenant marriage"?

Absolutely not. The government is not what makes marriage official in the eyes of God. I know people who have went the private marriage path. I don't have a problem with it aside from the fact that many times it is on false pretenses to keep government assistance, and in the case of needed healthcare I can't say what I would really do in that case either. Thankful to God that I am not in such a situation. I don't think private marriage would be an issue, but for some I think it would be an honesty issue.

Just a thought, if two people who are terminally ill can't legally wed and keep their healthcare could a change in their relationship be an option. Before my wife and I were married I would have not wanted to walk away from our relationship, but if it would of meant being right with God and my wife receiving medical att. then I would have to consider. I do not judge in these type situations, but people should not allow the enemy to box them in a corner. Review your options, spend time in prayer and study, and make a decision in good conscious toward God.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Absolutely not. The government is not what makes marriage official in the eyes of God. I know people who have went the private marriage path. I don't have a problem with it aside from the fact that many times it is on false pretenses to keep government assistance, and in the case of needed healthcare I can't say what I would really do in that case either. Thankful to God that I am not in such a situation. I don't think private marriage would be an issue, but for some I think it would be an honesty issue.

Just a thought, if two people who are terminally ill can't legally wed and keep their healthcare could a change in their relationship be an option. Before my wife and I were married I would have not wanted to walk away from our relationship, but if it would of meant being right with God and my wife receiving medical att. then I would have to consider. I do not judge in these type situations, but people should not allow the enemy to box them in a corner. Review your options, spend time in prayer and study, and make a decision in good conscious toward God.

For me, and others that I know, civil marriage didn't work out so well. We believed that it provided a degree of security when in fact, it opened us up to liabilities that truly surprised us. Liabilities that our estranged spouses exploited. Most of the time these aren't realized until one faces a divorce. Those of us who have had to navigate the turbulent waters of divorce know how inequitable, expensive, intrusive, and truly painful the civil system can be. For us, our experiences causes us to reconsider, noting that civil marriage offered us no real security. As a result, we'd rather contract a marriage privately, keeping the civil government out of our relationships.

We also note that Christians aren't to go to law against one another in the civil courts of the world. Paul wrote:

"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!" ~ I Corinthians 6:1-8 (ESV)

So, based on this, we find the effort of seeking to avoid the civil courts to be a biblical Christian virtue. A civil marriage binds one to have to resolve divorce and marital issues in civil court, thus a private contract or arrangement is best. It is better to be "defrauded" or "suffer wrong" than to go before the civil courts of the world. Christian families and congregations do well to settle all matters privately.

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

For me, and others that I know, civil marriage didn't work out so well. We believed that it provided a degree of security when in fact, it opened us up to liabilities that truly surprised us. Liabilities that our estranged spouses exploited. Most of the time these aren't realized until one faces a divorce. Those of us who have had to navigate the turbulent waters of divorce know how inequitable, expensive, intrusive, and truly painful the civil system can be. For us, our experiences causes us to reconsider, noting that civil marriage offered us no real security. As a result, we'd rather contract a marriage privately, keeping the civil government out of our relationships.

We also note that Christians aren't to go to law against one another in the civil courts of the world. Paul wrote:

"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!" ~ I Corinthians 6:1-8 (ESV)

So, based on this, we find the effort of seeking to avoid the civil courts to be a biblical Christian virtue. A civil marriage binds one to have to resolve divorce and marital issues in civil court, thus a private contract or arrangement is best. It is better to be "defrauded" or "suffer wrong" than to go before the civil courts of the world. Christian families and congregations do well to settle all matters privately.

Usually if there is a divorce one party could careless about scripture.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Rudy

Usually if there is a divorce one party could careless about scripture.

Also, with a civil marriage, they are equally entitled to half of everything, and a significant part of your income (spousal support), court costs, attorney's fees, and child support. With a good lawyer, they can rake you over the coals and make you wish you were dead. I've seen men taken to the cleaners through divorce. And while he's struggling to survive... she's partying with her new man (or lifestyle) using all that supplemental income that she has legally extorted from him by virtue of the civil (government) contract. Never before in human history has civil marriage been such a high stakes gamble for the average male.

However, with a private marriage, she might leave without notice while you're at work. She might take the television, the toaster oven, the microwave, the Xbox, kitchen tools, and stereo system. She can't force you to sell the house or any vehicles that aren't in her name. It's over in one solid blow. No court sessions necessary. If she doesn't return your calls or is emphatic that she's not coming back... you can pour some whiskey, cry your eyes out to some country music, and call it a night. You wake up the next morning and the healing begins.

If there are children involved, yes, you can expect child support in most states. But honestly, any decent father would be more than willing to pay child support to help in providing for his child (children).

Notice how divorce was envisioned by Paul (especially if one's spouse could care less about the Scripture):

1 Corinthians 7:15 (KJV)
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

In this context, the "unbelieving" spouse departs. The faithful brother or sister is to simply allow them to go. The brother or sister is no longer under any bondage to the marital union in Paul's opinion. It's over that quickly, cut and dry. Why? Because God has called us to peace. God has not called us to months of prolonged court battles and the emotional anguish that comes with them.

So if a party within a divorce doesn't care about the Scriptures, that's fine. Allow them to go. Seek God's peace on the matter and move on. You are no longer bound to them.