Marriage Rejuvenation?

[Aquila]

What I find most interesting is that conservatives shift rather statist concerning marriage.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

The 1838 Webster's Dictionary defines "license" as follows:

LI'CENSE, n. [L. licentia, from liceo, to be permitted.]

1. Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license. A man is not permitted to retail spirituous liquors till he has obtained a license.

2. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum.

License they mean, when they cry liberty.

LI'CENSE, v.t.

1. To permit by grant of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission; as, to license a man to keep an inn.

2. To authorize to act in a particular character; as, to license a physician or a lawyer.

3. To dismiss. [Not in use.]

So, basically, "license" means to be granted permission. With that in mind, Aquila and Sean, please answer the following:

1. If you have children, do they have Social Security numbers you use for identification purposes?
2. If you have children, do they have birth certificates you use for identification purposes?
3. Do you have a birth certificate that you use for identification purposes?
4. Do you have a Social Security number that you use for identification purposes?
5. Are you registered to vote?
6. Do you have a drivers license you use for identification purposes?
7. Do you have any type bank loan or credit card?
8. Do you pay taxes on your paycheck?
9. Do you use local utilities for your home?
10. Do you have a passport?
11. Do you have a gun permit?
12. Do you ever stay at a hotel or motel?
13. Do you ever purchase items that require a civil supplied photo ID?
14. Do you have a hunting license?
15. Do you have a fishing license?
16. Do you have a cell phone?
17. Do you ever visit casinos?
18. Do you ever give blood donations?
19. Do you purchase OTC medicine that contains pseudoephedrine?
20. Do you travel by plane?
21. Do you work for a company that pays you?
22. Do you ever make cash transactions of $5000.00 or greater?

Like a marriage, each of the above requires a CIVIL license, law, and/or picture ID.

So, if you do any of the above, then you are guilty of using civil authorities and laws to grant you permission to participate in said activities.

Thus, the claim that obtaining a civil license for marriage is anti-Bible is at best a biblically illiterate rant, or at worst it's an immoral justification for fornication, adultery, or polygamy.

I see your logic. However, for many of the things above, there are laws requiring those things. In addition, there are penalties for violating many of the things you listed above.

Is there any law "requiring" that Quakers (or others) register their marriages with the state? Are their laws prohibiting commitment ceremonies that recognize the spiritual covenant of marriage without the couple filing for a civil marriage?

If there are no laws against it, and there are no penalties, then it isn't "illegal", it is simply not recognized by the state because the couple hasn't chosen to involve the state in their union.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I see your logic. However, for many of the things above, there are laws requiring those things. In addition, there are penalties for violating many of the things you listed above.

The Same thing can be said for marriage.

I already provided the law that stated there is no common law marriage in Ohio.

I also provided what constitutes a legally recognized marriage in Ohio.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Is there any law "requiring" that Quakers (or others) register their marriages with the state? Are their laws prohibiting commitment ceremonies that recognize the spiritual covenant of marriage without the couple filing for a civil marriage?

Are you a Quaker?

Originally Posted by Aquila

If there are no laws against it, and there are no penalties, then it isn't "illegal", it is simply not recognized by the state because the couple hasn't chosen to involve the state in their union.

But there are laws that must be followed.

If you do not believe you broke any civil law, and because you didn't you claim did you are legally married, why return to calling your "wife" your "fiancée"?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

The Same thing can be said for marriage.

I already provided the law that stated there is no common law marriage in Ohio.

I also provided what constitutes a legally recognized marriage in Ohio.

But that's the point. Not every couple wants the state involved given the way the laws are written.

Are you a Quaker?

No. I am not Quaker. However, in the name of religious liberty, the Quakers serve as an excellent "example".

Here's a non-Quaker couple's story. They are liberty minded conservatives:

How Do I Get Married Without A License?
http://ncrenegade.com/education/how-...out-a-license/

Here's an ebook on Sovereign Christian Marriage (Non-Quaker):

Sovereign Christian Marriage
https://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/Sov...anMarriage.htm

Here's an article by a conservative independent pastor:

Five Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License
http://www.hushmoney.org/MarriageLicense-5.htm

And many churches call these "commitment ceremonies", here's an example of one of these:

Religious Commitment Ceremony
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...ceremony/9512/

I could post many, many, more non-Quaker examples of this practice. But you get the point. It's not strictly a Quaker thing. However, the Quakers have been doing this the longest, so they are an excellent historic example.

But there are laws that must be followed.

Is there a law prohibiting Quakers and others from having a wedding ceremony or a commitment ceremony that isn't registered with the state?

If you do not believe you broke any civil law, and because you didn't you claim did you are legally married, why return to calling your "wife" your "fiancée"?

I already explained the sentimentality behind it.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If there are no laws against it, and there are no penalties, then it isn't "illegal", it is simply not recognized by the state because the couple hasn't chosen to involve the state in their union.

Again, my list includes all kinds of activities that are legal or acceptable because the state is involved. I'm sure you do many of those without the state's involvement bothering your conscious. So. why would the state's involvement in marriage be a problem?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

No. I am not Quaker.

...


It's not strictly a Quaker thing. However, the Quakers have been doing it the longest.

Actually, Aquila, if you read the Ohio law, it makes it a "Quaker thing."

The Ohio law defines how certain named groups can legally conduct their marriages. You hitching yourself to THEIR rights, like a hobo grabs a free ride on a train, does not give you their rights.

What law can you cite that allows you to use Quaker rights when you're not Quaker?

What's next--tax free status because of Catholic Nuns?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Again, my list includes all kinds of activities that are legal or acceptable because the state is involved. I'm sure you do many of those without the state's involvement bothering your conscious. So. why would the state's involvement in marriage be a problem?

Great question. If you've ever been raked over the coals and financially disemboweled by a civil divorce court when you weren't' the offending party, you'd understand.

Imagine a spouse who cheats on you and leaves you. As time passes they refuse to reconcile and they will not agree to any divorce arrangement, and they refuse to sign divorce papers. Then consider that you don't have the thousands of dollars an attorney is asking to help fight for a divorce. Imagine being in limbo for years of your life, unable to move on, unable to live again, unable to buy property, unable to be free because your legal spouse has you essentially in bondage. It's pure Hell. Then imagine that you get the divorce under way and your spouse lies, slanders, and defames you and you have no "proof" to the contrary and the courts sympathize with her because you are in what is often called a "mother state" where the laws tend to favor the woman in a divorce. Imagine that her lies are so far from the truth you find yourself on the verge of throwing up in the courtroom. Imagine that she quit her job (because she was making more than you), chooses to live with a male "friend", and now is determined to file for spousal support and the court rewards it based solely upon the difference of income! Imagine that she lies and maligns the church you both attended to the point wherein your attorney advises you to NEVER go back to that church or she'll get full custody of your children. And she's even gotten to the point wherein she secretly watches to see if you ever go back to that church so that she can get her well paid attorney to drag you back into court and rip what partial custody and visitation you have by a civil court decree. Imagine that your own attorney gets to the point of recommending that you lie or embellish the truth to combat her lies. Imagine that you were so severely burned by the system you always thought would protect you that you've started contemplating suicide because death greats you warm compared to the Hell she and her lies are putting you through. And you didn't cheat. You didn't abandon the marriage. You sought reconciliation. But in some strange Twilight Zone like twist of fate, you get characterized as the villain and your attorney is even beside himself with the way things are going.

Imagine having a spouse cheat on you and leave you and filing for a divorce in a foreign country. Because they are active military they are connected with attorneys and resources that far outstrip your financial ability to defend yourself in court and in the end you're left financially wiped out, returning to the United States totally broke and with nowhere to go but your parents.

People who experience these things are far more likely to see the civil marriage system and its laws as hostile to their well being. It's almost like having someone use the government to beat the daylights out of you and rob you for every dime and ounce of happiness that they can.

No fault divorce law changed the rules of the game. Courts don't focus on grounds for divorce today. Your spouse could wake up tomorrow and take you for at the very least half of everything...just because she chooses to... and don't be surprised if she gets even more than half when all is said and done if she has a better highly paid attorney than you.

In the end... you see absolutely no security in civil marriage. Only liability. For some of us, when someone mentions a civil marriage... our blood runs cold. With the way that marriage laws are written, the state is not your friend when it comes to a civil marriage.

Then there are those circumstances wherein medical benefits or Social Security and pensions gained are necessary for financial or medical survival and a civil marriage would legally terminate all those things. These couples, often older couples, seek commitment ceremonies and spiritual covenant marriages too.

After going to that rodeo, you don't want to go back. It's not worth it. If the laws were to shift back into requiring grounds for divorce and provision of evidence for those grounds, I'd say civil marriage is definitely something that offers security. But not in our society wherein no fault divorce law is the law of the land.

This is why God's law required grounds for divorce. In God's law, the guilty party was penalized and the innocent party was vindicated and even afforded protections from damages as spelled out in the Ketubah. Our civil marriage system knows no such justice as long as no fault divorce is law of the land.

Then add the continuing degradation. People assume that because the courts ruled in favor of a lying slandering spouse, that she must have been right. And imagine that she gloats and spreads the poison throughout the network of friends you once shared, leaving only those who were truly closest to you knowing the truth, but the bitterness becomes so ugly, they'd rather just walk away from the both of you because they don't know what else to tell you other than, "Wow, man. Let me tell you what she said this week over Facebook. You really picked a winner. I'd have shot her.", or now they are not sure what who was doing what or what was going on..

A nice and quite private commitment ceremony or Quaker style wedding with terms that are strictly between the two of you becomes real appealing compared to the option of civil marriage, let me tell you.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Actually, Aquila, if you read the Ohio law, it makes it a "Quaker thing."

The Ohio law defines how certain named groups can legally conduct their marriages. You hitching yourself to THEIR rights, like a hobo grabs a free ride on a train, does not give you their rights.

What law can you cite that allows you to use Quaker rights when you're not Quaker?

What's next--tax free status because of Catholic Nuns?

While the state has made a way for Quaker couples to "choose" to legally conduct marriage, the Quakers officially reserve the right to conduct marriages "in care of the meeting" that are not in accordance to civil law.

Yes, it's nice that various states have made a way for Quakers to make their marriages legal. But not every Quaker desires to.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Sean, you were supposed to teach us, remember?

I asked you twice now these two questions:

Well, if the lineages in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 and the Jewish ketubah is not enough, maybe YOU should tell us how marriage is done in the Bible??

And while you're at it, please explain to us why there is a need for a "bill of divorcement" if there was never some type of judicial agreement on marriage.

You replied with the following:



Is it really taking you this much time to answer these two questions?

TK, I am no expert here. The best way to get to the bottom of this is by giving my opinion and getting others' opinion.

I think you may be confusing this subject with preterism/ futurism.

I am a teacher of futurism for AFF, not this subject, so if you answer my 2 questions I will see if your opinion makes sense.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

The 1838 Webster's Dictionary defines "license" as follows:

LI'CENSE, n. [L. licentia, from liceo, to be permitted.]

1. Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license. A man is not permitted to retail spirituous liquors till he has obtained a license.

2. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum.

License they mean, when they cry liberty.

LI'CENSE, v.t.

1. To permit by grant of authority; to remove legal restraint by a grant of permission; as, to license a man to keep an inn.

2. To authorize to act in a particular character; as, to license a physician or a lawyer.

3. To dismiss. [Not in use.]

So, basically, "license" means to be granted permission. With that in mind, Aquila and Sean, please answer the following:

1. If you have children, do they have Social Security numbers you use for identification purposes?
2. If you have children, do they have birth certificates you use for identification purposes?
3. Do you have a birth certificate that you use for identification purposes?
4. Do you have a Social Security number that you use for identification purposes?
5. Are you registered to vote?
6. Do you have a drivers license you use for identification purposes?
7. Do you have any type bank loan or credit card?
8. Do you pay taxes on your paycheck?
9. Do you use local utilities for your home?
10. Do you have a passport?
11. Do you have a gun permit?
12. Do you ever stay at a hotel or motel?
13. Do you ever purchase items that require a civil supplied photo ID?
14. Do you have a hunting license?
15. Do you have a fishing license?
16. Do you have a cell phone?
17. Do you ever visit casinos?
18. Do you ever give blood donations?
19. Do you purchase OTC medicine that contains pseudoephedrine?
20. Do you travel by plane?
21. Do you work for a company that pays you?
22. Do you ever make cash transactions of $5000.00 or greater?

Like a marriage, each of the above requires a CIVIL license, law, and/or picture ID.

So, if you do any of the above, then you are guilty of using civil authorities and laws to grant you permission to participate in said activities.

Thus, the claim that obtaining a civil license for marriage is anti-Bible is at best a biblically illiterate rant, or at worst it's an immoral justification for fornication, adultery, or polygamy.

Right but was this bureaucracy required before 1776?

Cant you see that these new laws did not exist at the establishment of marriage?

These have no bearing on the argument, TK.