My personal opinion is that a couple should be able to establish an entirely private marriage contract/agreement that reflects their religious and/or personal convictions. They should also be allowed to dissolve it privately if they desire should they agree on terms. Government has tampered with marriage and divorce for far too long. They've turned marriage into a high stakes gamble, and divorce has become an option that's too lucative if one can afford the right attorney. This is why more and more Americans are opting out of civil marriage and choosing to simply live together. And now, government is redefining it and eventually the state will FORCE everyone to recognize unions that are not true marriages simply based on their civil legality.
We should simply sign our Bibles as husband and wife and move forward. Distinctly Christian businesses or institutions would then be able to choose not to recognize various contracts based on their convictions.
A short history of marriage in Western civilization:
"In ancient Greek and Roman civilization, marriages were private agreements between individuals and families. Community recognition of a marriage was largely what qualified it as a marriage. The state had only limited interests in assessing the legitimacy of marriages. Normally civil and religious officials took no part in marriage ceremonies, nor did they keep registries. There were several more or less formal ceremonies to choose from (partly interchangeable, but sometimes with different legal ramifications) as well as informal arrangements. It was relatively common for couples to cohabit with no ceremony; cohabiting for a moderate period of time was sufficient to make it a marriage. Cohabiting for the purpose of marriage carried with it no social stigma.
In medieval Europe, marriage came under the jurisdiction of canon law, which recognized as a valid marriage one where the parties stated that they took one another as wife and husband, even in absence of any witnesses.
The Catholic Church forbade clandestine marriage at the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which required all marriages to be announced in a church by a priest. The Council of Trent (1545–1563) introduced more specific requirements, ruling that in the future a marriage would be valid only if witnessed by the pastor of the parish or the local ordinary (i.e., the bishop of the diocese), or by the delegate of one of said witnesses, the marriage being invalid otherwise, even if witnessed by a Catholic priest. The Tridentine canons did not bind the Protestants or the Eastern Orthodox, but clandestine marriage was impossible for the latter, since marriage required the presence of a priest for validity. England abolished clandestine or common law marriages in the Marriage Act 1753, requiring marriages to be performed by a priest of the Church of England unless the participants in the marriage were Jews or Quakers. The Act applied to Wales. The Act did not apply to Scotland because by the Acts of Union 1707 Scotland retained its own legal system. To get around the requirements of the Marriage Act, such as minimum age requirements, couples would go to Gretna Green, in southern Scotland, to get married under Scots law.
Marriages by Per Verba De Praesenti, sometimes known as common law marriages, were an agreement to marry, rather than a marriage.
The Marriage Act of 1753 also did not apply to Britain's overseas colonies of the time, so common law marriages continued to be recognized in the future United States and Canada. In the United States, common law marriage can still be contracted in Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, the District of Columbia, or under military law. Except for same-sex interpersonal unions contracted by habit and repute, all jurisdictions recognize common law marriages that were validly contracted in the originating jurisdiction, because they are valid marriages in the jurisdiction where they were contracted.
All other European jurisdictions having long abolished "marriage by habit and repute", Scotland became the last to do so in 2006." - Wikipedia
Essentially, marriage was historically a private contractual association between private individuals and/or families. It wasn't until the politically power mad RCC took it upon itself to manage the private associations of the people that marriage began to become "regulated" by government. From there we can see that marriage increasingly fell into the hands of GOVERNMENT.
Marriage belongs in the private sector, free from civil entanglements of law. It should be returned to being a private contract between individuals that is established privately and ended privately.
Marriage has always been a religious institution. Governments have siezed control of marriage over the past few decades in the name of protecting its citizens, preventing incest in some cases, and also in the effort to prevent the spread of various diseases.
With that said, just because man's government has siezed control of this sacred institution does it mean that we as the Church should submit to the man-made rules and regulations set forth by the State? I believe the church is the sole and only authority to dictate the definition and execution of marriage, not the state! In other words, because marriage has been defined by the constructs of religion, it should stay that way. The government cannot redfine marriage, or say who anyone can or cannot marry. That power rests within the authority of God's Kingdom, the church.
So, why are so many Christians submissive to the guidelines of statist marriage rules and regulations?
You missed the one point that matters. $$$$$$$$$$$
While you are right in the above, Marriage also was ceedeed to the government over money.
When the Social Security system was created in this country, one thing that wasnt innitally considered was what happens to a family when a man dies and his wife has no Social Security because she stays home? That was the typical case.
Government quickly moved to extend SS benifits to Married couples.
That gave government all the control it needed. WE WANT OUR MONEY so we rely on government to sanction marriage.
Social Security gave the government the ability to make Marriage a contract between 2 people and the state, as opposed to being a covanant between a man, a woman, and God.
From the point of contract between Government and two people, Government can then extend its contract to "protect" whomever they want to protect...
BUT government is also at that point, required to live and die by the constitition. The Constitution does not allow the government to look at people differently. Equal Protection REQUIRES government to veiw all people the same.
Guess what? We, the House of God ceeded control of this sacred right to the government for a bowl of porrage. Now we have an empty bowl and God aint pleased...and the government now has to forces US to abandon our religious conviction in order to insure we comply with the constitutional mandate of equal protection....;
if your church rents its building to people who dont go to your church for any reason, Gay people can rent it, and you cant tell them no.
if you make cakes for peoples weddings, you cant tell a gay couple you have a religious conviciton against it.
if you do photography for weddings...etc.... you cant tell people you dont do that when your religious convictions are violated.
The only way back is to demand marriage be removed from all legal language, and instead call it civil union for the purpose of government benifits.
We do not have the stomach to do that.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Some advocate boycotting civil marriage. Churches simply bless couples under God and move on. Let each couple sort out their circumstances and get a "civil marriage" if they desire.
I got the answer! Cut out all tax incentives for married couples. Period. Then gay people won't want to get married.
If a couple has been married for seven years before the spouse dies then they can get Social Security benefits. Married six years, too bad you are not a real married couple.
In fact change that to thirty years.
__________________ In the Old Days, if you wanted to argue about religion you had to go to Church.
Nowadays you get on the internet!
You missed the one point that matters. $$$$$$$$$$$
While you are right in the above, Marriage also was ceedeed to the government over money.
When the Social Security system was created in this country, one thing that wasnt innitally considered was what happens to a family when a man dies and his wife has no Social Security because she stays home? That was the typical case.
Government quickly moved to extend SS benifits to Married couples.
That gave government all the control it needed. WE WANT OUR MONEY so we rely on government to sanction marriage.
Social Security gave the government the ability to make Marriage a contract between 2 people and the state, as opposed to being a covanant between a man, a woman, and God.
From the point of contract between Government and two people, Government can then extend its contract to "protect" whomever they want to protect...
BUT government is also at that point, required to live and die by the constitition. The Constitution does not allow the government to look at people differently. Equal Protection REQUIRES government to veiw all people the same.
Guess what? We, the House of God ceeded control of this sacred right to the government for a bowl of porrage. Now we have an empty bowl and God aint pleased...and the government now has to forces US to abandon our religious conviction in order to insure we comply with the constitutional mandate of equal protection....;
if your church rents its building to people who dont go to your church for any reason, Gay people can rent it, and you cant tell them no.
if you make cakes for peoples weddings, you cant tell a gay couple you have a religious conviciton against it.
if you do photography for weddings...etc.... you cant tell people you dont do that when your religious convictions are violated.
The only way back is to demand marriage be removed from all legal language, and instead call it civil union for the purpose of government benifits.
We do not have the stomach to do that.
Bingo! We forget about all the legal 'benefits' of marriage and how the gov't can't discriminate. Very good points.
Bingo! We forget about all the legal 'benefits' of marriage and how the gov't can't discriminate. Very good points.
Linear Mode
