Sinless Perfection

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by houston

What if they decide to do common law before moving in together?

Explain how that's possible, because you have to live together to become common law married.

[houston]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Explain how that's possible, because you have to live together to become common law married.

There is no time frame in Texas. You just have to decide to be married and tell people that you’re married.
——
You must show that you and your partner:

are not already married, informally or formally, to anyone else at the time the marriage was created, and
both you and your partner were at least 18 years of age when the marriage was created; and
you agreed to be married, and
afterward, lived in Texas as a married couple, and
represented to others that you are married (“holding out” to others).

[houston]

Living together for X amount of years before being considered a common law marriage is a myth. People can shack up for decades and not be considered common law married if they didn’t agree to be in a marriage and did not represent themselves as married.

[n david]

Common law is shacking up and, as was posted previously, just "classy fornication."

[houston]

No. Not if intent is to be married. Otherwise it’s not common law.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by houston

There is no time frame in Texas. You just have to decide to be married and tell people that you’re married.
——
You must show that you and your partner:

are not already married, informally or formally, to anyone else at the time the marriage was created, and
both you and your partner were at least 18 years of age when the marriage was created; and
you agreed to be married, and
afterward, lived in Texas as a married couple, and
represented to others that you are married (“holding out” to others).

My only question is why would someone do it that way, considering it means the same thing? Meaning either one you have to lawfully get divorced. So seems like a lot of work just to break the status quo. What's the real line of thinking here? Divorces cost you like 190 dollars online uncontested, why wouldn't someone just get regularly married? Unless they didn't want to be married?

For someone to do this they are trying to fall into some loophole. No pastor especially Apostolic pastor I have ever met would have a ceremony without signing a license. It would be very unethical.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

It is in our society Aquila. Your missing what I'm saying I'm not talking about in Jerusalem.

So, now we take are ques from a godless statist society?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I'm saying God doesn't recognize that as a marriage covenant.

God recognized common law marriage for longer in human history than "civil" marriage. God doesn't change.

According to Jesus, who joins a man and woman together, God or Caesar?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Because that's the way true marriage is designed. Because everything is to be done decently and in order. What you are proposing is spiritual Russian roulette.

My Bible says "flee also youthful lusts."

The form of marriage you're clinging to isn't even 100 years old yet. And just look at the state of marriage today.

[Aquila]

A lot of assumptions are being made. Many Quakers, Libertarians, Conservatives, and Christian Sovereignists would strongly disagree that a couple must have state marriage licenses.

Even very conservative Baptists in Texas disagree with you, 1ofthechosen ...

Bad idea for ministers to sign marriage licenses, pastors insist
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news...astors-insist/

Right or Wrong? Signing state marriage licenses
https://www.baptiststandard.com/opin...iage-licenses/

Pastors want covenant certificates to replace marriage licenses
https://www.baptiststandard.com/news...iage-licenses/

Pastors, stop signing those marriage licenses
https://baptistnews.com/article/past.../#.Ww99w8spAew

Ah, let me guess. Are you a state licenced minister? If so, doesn't that makes you an agent of the state, legally bound to only recognize statist marriages? Am I correct?