Marriage Privatization:

[Tascero]

I have one quick question, that I'd like to be answered. Can anyone answer this?: Did the old covenant allow polygamy, or polyandry? Do Jews believe in either of them, or both?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Tascero

I have one quick question, that I'd like to be answered. Can anyone answer this?: Did the old covenant allow polygamy, or polyandry? Do Jews believe in either of them, or both?

It is my understanding that the OT allowed for polygamy (specifically, polygyny). Polyandry wasn't acceptable due to the OT view of women belonging to there husbands. Polyandrous marriage/arrangements can be found in several ancient cultures, but not in the OT Scriptures.

While historically speaking, polygamy isn't forbidden in Judaism, it was forbidden by rabbinical authorities. Only those on the fringe practice polygamy (as we understand it) today.

However, there is the case of the Agunah. The Agunah is a "bound woman". In Judaism there are two aspects to marriage, the Jewish marriage and any civil arrangement established by any government a Jewish couple lives in. This means that in Judaism there is both a civil and a religious divorce. What Jewish men have tended to do is file for a civil divorce and withhold issuing a Jewish writ of divorcement to their wives (the "get"). This means that although the couple is divorced in accordance to civil law, they are not divorced in accordance to Jewish law. Jewish law technically allows a man more than one wife, so men withholding the get often remarry into a second civil marriage with a new Jewish Ketubah (Jewish marriage contract), leaving their first wife bound to the union as far as the Jewish community is concerned. These husbands often extort money, parental rights, or property from their first wives in exchange for the get. Until the Jewish get is issued, the woman is Agunah. Should she remarry under civil law, the Jewish community would condemn her as an adulteress.

Many rabbis are trying to take action to allow women to be free from this abuse that has raged since the time of Christ.

However, as it relates to this question, those men who do force their wives into the Agunot (plural for Agunah) and remarry are technically married to more than one woman according to Jewish law. So these men could be called polygamists on technicality.

[Aquila]

If the civil government abolished "civil marriage" and simply recognized "civil unions" religious institutions could define any relationship they wished as a "marriage" and any coupling could file for civil benefits under "civil union" if they so desired. This would allow couples the freedom to both form a marriage and choose if they wanted it to be private or civil in nature.

[Rudy]

It seems a marriage license is like a ministers license. It just seems to grant you certain privileges with secular government.

That is all it is.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Rudy

It seems a marriage license is like a ministers license. It just seems to grant you certain privileges with secular government.

That is all it is.

Exactly. It is essentially just another government program.

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Me too. Now that I've experienced civil marriage and the divorce courts, I'm leery of ever getting entangled with the system again. I'd rather my second marriage remain private. We'll wear rings signifying our covenant, but I don't want the civil government defining the marriage or setting the terms of the marriage.

Yea, the government becomes the head. You can divorce for any reason. I'm very leery as well. It just seems the whole institution of marriage is in disarray.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Rudy

Yea, the government becomes the head. You can divorce for any reason. I'm very leery as well. It just seems the whole institution of marriage is in disarray.

So very true. I think God's way is quite simple.

The Bible states:

Matthew 19:5-6
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The first thing I notice in this verse is that it is God who unites a man and woman in the bonds of love and sexual union. This is God's design. Man and woman fall in love and have sex. And as a result, regardless of ritual or social construct, they become one flesh. This union is so concrete before God that Paul warned the Corinthians that even sexual union with a harlot establishes a one flesh relationship between the saint and the harlot (I Corinthians 6:15-16). So, regardless of social custom, legality, culturally accepted norms or rituals, or any other circumstance, if a man and woman have sexual union they have become one flesh in the eyes of God.

The second thing I notice is that Jesus warns us not to try and dissolve or separate this union. This is why I disagree with churches who try to split-up couples that are what they might call, "unmarried". Based on Scripture, these couples should be regarded as being one flesh before God not broken up, especially if they've been together for years. The church I came to the LORD in always lovingly encouraged couples to consider civil marriage to "make it official". Our pastor would say, "I'm not going to try and separate what God has joined together. They just need a little encouragement to take care of legalities."

So, I support privatizing marriage and churches embracing private commitment ceremonies for couples who do not wish to involve the government in their unions.

[Aquila]

An interesting letter:

David Novak

In my opinion, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim clergy should stop officiating at civil marriage ceremonies altogether in those jurisdictions where same-sex couples have the right to register their unions as civil marriages. There are fundamental theological reasons for my stance having to do with the covenantal reality of marriage, but here I want to focus on political reasons.

Secularists have tremendous power in Canada and the United States. From them we hear increasingly about the secular “values,” especially egalitarianism. These “values” insist on the necessity of setting aside or redefining many traditional religious institutions, like heterosexual marriage. Indeed, secularist advocates now regularly castigate our religious traditions as being “discriminatory.”

Given this trend, how long will it be before my synagogue in Toronto will be forced by the court to allow a same-sex couple to be married in the sanctuary or have their wedding reception in the social hall? Not long, I fear. Clergy are now functioning as registers of civil marriage. We already know that other religious persons, whose job it is to officiate at civil marriages, have been forced out of their jobs altogether for refusing to register same-sex marriages (at least in Canada, where same-sex marriage is permitted throughout the country). The only difference between the two kinds of marriage registers, officially secular or officially religious, is the location of the respective weddings. Our legal vulnerability would be much less if my synagogue were no longer in the civil marriage “business” at all.

Even renouncing clergy’s role as register of civil marriages might not be enough. The day may yet come when purely religious weddings will have to be held clandestinely. It’s not hard to imagine that “anti-discriminatory” zealotry will insist on the duty of all officiants at any ceremony that solemnizes anything that calls itself a “marriage” (whether secular or religious) to do so for any couple who comes to them for this purpose. Those who refuse to do so will be penalized legally. As marriage is redefined by civil law, what’s to stop judges from requiring us all to conform to the new meaning?

Therefore, I suggest that faithful Jews, Christians, and Muslims work for the abolition of civil marriage altogether (wherever it has already lost its traditional definition), and for it to be replaced by civil unions. Since these civil unions need not involve any sexual relationship between the parties, there need be no concern about the state sanctioning what are illicit sexual unions by traditional standards, whose origins are admittedly religious. Like any contract, they could be worked out among the parties themselves. Of course, for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, marriage is much more than an ordinary civil contract, but by defining civil marriage down, as it were, we’re more likely to preserve its covenantal meaning in our religious traditions. A covenantal relationship is much deeper than a merely contractual one.

I think this is a realistic direction to take in the public discussion. There is less and less of a secular consensus today as to the definition of what “marriage” actually is. It is only in the religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that “marriage” has a consistent definition (logically and historically) of what it is and what it is not. Only there can the fallacy of generalization (i.e., marriage being any officially sanctioned relationship two or more persons want it to be) be avoided. As such, why not leave the institution of marriage to the adherents of these venerable traditions (as in Israel)? Furthermore, isn’t the inclusion of same-sex unions in civil marriage still discriminatory, hence anti-egalitarian? And isn’t egalitarianism the value that liberals regularly invoke to justify the innovation of same-sex civil marriage? Why are polygamists excluded? Why is polyandry excluded? Why is “polyamory” (which involves more than one man and more than one woman) excluded? And what about people who feel intimate ties but don’t want to have sex with each other?

The clamor for same-sex civil marriage, when civil unions are readily available, seems to be beseeching the secular state for a blessing. (Indeed, several homosexuals have told me that they seek the blessing of the state because they feel they have been “cursed” by their families and their religious communities.) But the secular state is not and ought not be in the blessing business. Blessings have a uniquely religious meaning. So leave blessings to those who have a tradition in both receiving them and dispensing them. And, finally, as for the more liberal clergy (Jewish, Christian, and maybe Muslim, too) who do officiate at same-sex marriages (or even only “bless” them), they must be asked and ask themselves: What warrant do you have from your respective religious traditions (and the divine revelations upon which they are based) for engaging in such nontraditional, radical practices?

—David Novak holds the J. Richard and
Dorothy Shiff Chair of Jewish Studies
at the University of Toronto.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So very true. I think God's way is quite simple.

The Bible states:

Matthew 19:5-6
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

The first thing I notice in this verse is that it is God who unites a man and woman in the bonds of love and sexual union. This is God's design. Man and woman fall in love and have sex.

I believe you're missing a very important piece. God's design is not for us to jump in the sack with someone and call it good. This post and a previous one like it makes it appear as though all one needs to do in the eyes of God is to have sex, and Voila! They're a couple.

But that isn't right. That's fornication.

It's fine if you don't want to get the marriage license and you want to stick it to Uncle Sam, but there must be a covenant they enter into before consummating the marriage.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

I believe you're missing a very important piece. God's design is not for us to jump in the sack with someone and call it good. This post and a previous one like it makes it appear as though all one needs to do in the eyes of God is to have sex, and Voila! They're a couple.

But that isn't right. That's fornication.

It's fine if you don't want to get the marriage license and you want to stick it to Uncle Sam, but there must be a covenant they enter into before consummating the marriage.

I agree.

There has to be a covenant. A sacred commitment. Those who enter a private marriage covenant don't just sleep together and call it done. They consolidate their lives, establish a home. They also do well if they get the necessary powers of attorney to grant authority over one another's health care and finances. The goal is to maintain as much personal control over the relationship as possible, without involving government and the courts. It is impossible to completely avoid legalities in our society and have nearly the same legal rights as other couples married under government authority.

I admit, a civil marriage is less complicated. It is also common, so no explanation is necessary. Also, churches are more likely to recognize it as valid.

If one wishes to truly live a simple life, with the least government interference, perhaps they should consider being single. There are immense blessings in singleness. A quiet home, complete control over one's time and obligations, complete control over times of personal worship and devotions, deeper friendships, more time to serve the church and minister, total control over one's own finances, privacy, deeper intimacy in prayer is more easily accomplished, sin can often be dealt with swiftly without interference, questions, or effecting others, chores are far lighter, and a good Christian witness can be established. Sure, there might be times of loneliness, sexual frustration, and a slight stigma that cause others who do not understand to think you're odd, leaving them wondering if anything is wrong with you, or causing them to occasionally try to play match maker, but if viewed objectively, these are minor problems.

Ultimately, I believe individuals should be free to live according to their convictions.