Marriage Rejuvenation?

[Aquila]

If anyone has a spouse who will always prove to be faithful and never turn around and purposefully seek to destroy you, you're blessed.

But God help the man who thinks his marriage stands and faces a demon possessed wife who files for a "no fault" divorce seemingly out of the blue. The courts won't care if she's been unfaithful. Nor will it care that you were faithful to the contract. The two of you are, in the eyes of the court, just an entity incorporated by the state. And the state will liquidate and distribute all the assets and wealth of your incorporation as statute demands.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I see your concern. I'll try to clarify...

I'm not saying that civil marriage is "sin". What I am saying is that the laws governing it are "unbiblical" and do not express God's intentions regarding the institution. For example, "no-fault" divorce statutes. For centuries divorce required "grounds". And if one had "grounds" for divorce, it was granted. If differences were indeed deemed to be irreconcilable (after court mandated counseling), the court might grant the divorce, but it would lean towards favoring the individual who was faithful to the marriage contract and not the one who was breaking it "without grounds". In addition, if one had "grounds" to file for divorce, it was usually due to some illegal activity, abuse, betrayal, or unfaithfulness on the part of the other party. And so the court would consider the innocent party's well being and this would prove as a liability to the guilty party. For example, a promiscuous wife would face an uphill battle to get spousal support. This provided what courts are intended to provide... "justice". This is how marriage and divorce were handled in our grandparents and our parents generations. This is why they would tell us that a civil marriage offers security and legal protection if you were wronged by a spouse. However, the statutes were changed. Now the court doesn't care if one has grounds for divorce or not. Nor is the court concerned with establishing "fault" or providing "justice". Instead, the court views the couple as a state created corporation to be liquidated. Regardless of which party was wronged vs. which wasn't (unless the wrong was criminal) the state liquidates property and assets (unless another arrangement is agreed upon) and will divide everything evenly. In addition, the individual bringing in the least income is automatically entitled to spousal support. In other words, a spouse can go out and cheat with a dozen men (or women) and file for a divorce against their faithful spouse. In spite of their unfaithfulness, the court often entitles them to half of all assets and even spousal support...leaving the faithful spouse's life in ruins and legally ordering them to help pay for their unfaithful spouse's new lifestyle. Many women (and men) have made their living by seducing loving and faithful well to do spouses with the sole intent of divorcing them after a period of time so that they will be entitled to great wealth. This is legalized extortion. And this is exactly the opposite of the security God designed marriage to provide and the process by which divorce was to be granted and handled. Not only does this contribute to making divorce far more lucrative for the lower income making party, but it also discourages civil marriage for the untold number of men and women who know that a civil marriage will prove to be a serious gamble with all that they've worked their entire life to attain.

So, what I (and others of this opinion) are saying is that it is "unbiblical" and "unjust". Now, those in a civil marriage haven't "sinned". However, if they do end up "sinning" and it leads to divorce, and they allow legal counsel to use the system to extort from their innocent spouse, they indeed have "sinned" by participating in the injustice of said system. For example, my attorney wanted me to lie and accuse my wife of physical violence against our child to get an immediate custody order, just to make her battle an uphill battle. I refused to lie about anything, and that put me in a serious disadvantage as she lied her little head off (probably at the behest of her legal counsel) and used the system to virtually destroy me.

I remember the conversation with my attorney. He said, "Has she ever been violent towards your son?" I said, "No, she hasn't." He said, "Look, if she has or hasn't, only you would know. But it's up to you to give me something to work with if you want your son." I said, "Are you asking me to lie to get custody of my son???" He said, "Absolutely not. I'd never ask you to 'lie'. But nothing is stopping her from lying to take your son from you."

And had I lied, the extended litigation would have made both attorneys a couple thousand extra dollars. He baited me to lie to get something I wanted, which would have resulted in open war in the courts. Which would have led to additional legal actions on both our parts to combat and protect each other from the other... making both attorneys a lot more money. And sadly, unless one has hard evidence to the contrary of a false accusation of something criminal, the courts favor the accuser over the accused.

For this reason (and please stop speaking as though I'm the only one with this position) an increasing number of Christians and Christian pastors are questioning the benefit and justice of this civil contract and the civil courts that manage it.

So because your attorney was shady and you had a bad divorce, you believe it's unbiblical to have a civil marriage?

Things happen. People aren't always honest or Godly. I'd have a long list of things to be against if I began writing down all the situations in which people were dishonest and sinful.

People lying in divorce isn't new. One of the claimed reasons for no fault divorce was to stop people from perjuring themselves by lying in order to obtain a divorce.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I never said it was "about divorce". Again, this is a misrepresentation, a straw man. I was actually trying to explain was that this passage is about any form of litigation, or lawsuit, performed before an unbelieving court (that would include divorce). To clarify why I say that, I'll present the text for the sake of our readers.

The point is, my understanding of I Corinthians 6:1-8 isn't something I've made up. It is the historic understanding of many old world Christians.

Interesting you signed up for military service, but draw the line at a marriage certificate.

If a state law requires a marriage certificate, and one refuses to follow that law, are they not in violation of Paul and Peter's command to obey the ordinances and law of man? What is your reason that 1 Corinthians 6 applies to marriage but Paul and Peter's commandments do not?

Originally Posted by Aquila

I agree. I never said a piece of paper has caused marriage to suffer. Men and women have always been sinful. So, that hasn't changed. What has changed are the laws and statutes that govern marriage. The unjust laws and civil statutes that make marriage an instant ticket to wealth with no-fault divorce laws only create financial incentive to divorce (or to never marry). And as a result, we see far more people filing for divorce or choosing not to marry. And do your research. Who files for divorce more often? Men or women? Women. And who tend to make out like bandits after a divorce? Women. In fact, there are many women (and even a small number of men) who have made quite a small fortune through the civil divorce courts who entered their marriages with the express intention of using the court to extort from their faithful and wealthy spouses. It's the laws and statutes that have made divorce far more prevalent and caused more people to seriously reconsider a civil marriage. Just imagine if they did away with these modern "no-fault" divorce statutes. Imagine if we went back to the days when actual "legal grounds" for divorce were put back into place. We'd see far fewer divorces, because divorce wouldn't be so lucrative for the spouse making less.

What does 1929 have to do with marriage or how marriage has become worse?

You didn't mention a piece of paper has caused marriage to suffer, but you said that government involvement has. Not sure what all the government forced you to do, all it required of me was to sign a marriage license. Most couple I know haven't suffered from the government requiring them to sign a piece of paper.

No fault divorce wasn't done in 1929, it was first passed in California in 1969. New York became the last in 2010.

Bringing back "legal grounds" and removing no fault divorces wouldn't lower divorces or keep people from defrauding or lying in order to obtain a divorce.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Sadly, the two are connected. If you enter into a civil marriage, you consent to the laws and statutes governing it and it's dissolution. And yes, civil marriage has made divorce more costly than ever before, but that hasn't stopped divorce from growing because it is still lucrative, typically for the spouse who files for divorce. In fact, the costliness of divorce has only served to allow the guilty to perform legalized extortion against innocent spouses.

And yes, covenant marriage makes divorce far more simple. In biblical times the writ of divorcement was written by the husband, witnessed, and delivered to the wife... and she had to leave. God didn't create a divorce system that was long and drawn out or even expensive. Right now the cost of divorce often breaks the innocent party and helps make attorneys wealthy. Covenant marriage protects the assets of each person. You can't take her car. She can't take your house. Neither of you (especially the guilty party) can demand continued financial support. Oh, she might leave and take the television, stereo system, Xbox, the laptop, and the toaster. But as Paul said,

I Corinthians 6:7 (ESV)
"Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?"

Just let her go. In fact, when dealing with an apostate or unbelieving spouse who abandons a believer, Paul writes:

I Corinthians 7:15
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.

Paul doesn't require any litigation or court battles. In fact, if your apostate or unbelieving spouse departs, let them go. From that moment forward you're not under bondage to the union. It's done. Over. Why? God has called us to peace, not extended legal battles, arguing, fighting, or strife. By just letting them go peacefully you increase the chances that they might one day see the peaceful nature and compassion of our faith and be saved.

The "no-fault" divorce statutes that govern marriage today has robbed marriage of the security it was designed to have, and has actually made it a serious gamble. A liability of liabilities. An institution of extortion.

God didn't create divorce at all, what do you mean "God didn't create a divorce system that was long and drawn out or even expensive"? Divorce wasn't created by God, it was created by sinful man.

Through much of your post here, and previous ones, it seems to come down to ease of divorce and cost of divorce. It's not really about the bible or what God wants. The posts have been mostly about civil marriage makes it hard and costly to divorce vs covenant marriage where you can quickly wash your hands of your marriage and not spend any money doing so.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

So because your attorney was shady and you had a bad divorce, you believe it's unbiblical to have a civil marriage?

Wow. I never said that either. What I said was that the civil statutes governing civil marriage are not "biblical" nor are they written to insure "justice". I gave an example of the way the statutes are written and the manner in which they can be used. You completely ignored the point and focused on the example. lol

Things happen. People aren't always honest or Godly. I'd have a long list of things to be against if I began writing down all the situations in which people were dishonest and sinful.

I agree. However, a codified legal statute isn't merely people being bad. It's a codified liability. And in some cases, it's codified extortion. Ask any man who was taken for a ride by a wife who was unfaithful and ended up with half of everything and spousal support for the boos at her naughty parties.

People lying in divorce isn't new. One of the claimed reasons for no fault divorce was to stop people from perjuring themselves by lying in order to obtain a divorce.

In other words, the court stopped being concerned with discovering the "truth" regarding who was at fault. This makes my case. This makes civil marriage no longer an institution for security, but rather a gamble. And that isn't what God intended it to be. A "covenant" offers security and cut and dry terms that are agreed upon by the people entering said covenant. The state just up and changed the contract without asking any married person their opinion. When a person's livelihood is at stake, the court should be concerned with fault and the truth. If people perjure themselves, then they perjure themselves. Here's an extreme example, but let's say the court got fed up with people perjuring themselves in murder cases, so they decided not to even concern themselves with testimony. Would that be justice? Nope. By changing the rules they demonstrate that they are no longer concerned with fault, security, or justice for innocent spouses. In fact, they are also admitting that mitigating the details of a marriage I failure is beyond their capability to handle legally and provide justice to the innocent party at the same time.

You just made my case. This is "unbiblical". Grounds had to be stipulated for a divorce in God's economy. And the guilty was penalized, not the innocent.

Interesting you signed up for military service, but draw the line at a marriage certificate.

Again, I've not only signed up for military service, but I had a civil marriage. And honestly, the military service was far less painful. lol

Yes, I can say that I've been there, done that. So I'm speaking from experience.

I'd also like to add that if I were younger, I wouldn't volunteer for military service today. All too often political agendas around personal profit govern military action taken.

If a state law requires a marriage certificate, and one refuses to follow that law, are they not in violation of Paul and Peter's command to obey the ordinances and law of man? What is your reason that 1 Corinthians 6 applies to marriage but Paul and Peter's commandments do not?

I was "required" to get a marriage certificate? LOL If we don't wish to have one, will they come and arrest me? Will they fine me? What law have I broken? The fact is, they only "require" the certificate IF you wish to have the legal benefits that the system offers. If you don't, they could care less. It isn't a crime. In fact, a Muslim man can take in 4 women and call them all his wives in accordance to Islamic law, but not file a thing with the state, and the government wouldn't care unless they tried to claim some government benefit relating to being in a civil marriage. A contract is only valid if it is entered into voluntarily. A contract can't be required for those who voluntarily do not wish to enter into it.

Since we don't wish to have said government benefits right now, we're not "required" to have a state marriage certificate right now. It's as simple as that.

What does 1929 have to do with marriage or how marriage has become worse?

You're arguing for civil marriage, and you don't know the significance of 1929. You might also wish to research the Federal government's Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act, which weakened the authority of states to govern marriage and forced licensing into their processes. In addition, you might want to research the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, another Federal government attempt to undermine state authority over marriage.

You didn't mention a piece of paper has caused marriage to suffer, but you said that government involvement has. Not sure what all the government forced you to do, all it required of me was to sign a marriage license. Most couple I know haven't suffered from the government requiring them to sign a piece of paper.

I'm sure you married a good woman. I pray you never have to discover what you agreed to by signing your marriage license. Honestly, I pray no man or woman ever has to discover that. I'd love to see divorce fade from existence. It's a terrible terrible thing, and it's made even worse with the civil statutes that govern it.

No fault divorce wasn't done in 1929, it was first passed in California in 1969. New York became the last in 2010.

I never said no-fault divorce was made law in 1929. The significance of 1929 is that it is the year that marked every state in the Union having chosen to sign on board the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act. This was a Federal take over of state processes regarding marriage. And it eventually led to the abolishing of common law marriage, which predated civil marriage and was recognized from colonial times.

Bringing back "legal grounds" and removing no fault divorces wouldn't lower divorces or keep people from defrauding or lying in order to obtain a divorce.

Yes it would. And if you look at marriage and divorce in our parent's generation, grandparent's generation, and our great grandparent's generation, it was far more difficult to legally get a divorce and so couples tended to work things out instead of rushing to divorce court.

God didn't create divorce at all, what do you mean "God didn't create a divorce system that was long and drawn out or even expensive"? Divorce wasn't created by God, it was created by sinful man.

Again, I never said that "God created divorce". Man, you guys are really hard of reading. What I said was that the "system" God codified in Scripture to accommodate man's hardness of heart and desire to divorce wasn't a long and drawn out process. You're getting tangled up again and missing the point. In the Law, divorce wasn't half as difficult as it is under civil law today. No attorney's were needed. The husband was authorized to write the decree himself and all he had to do was give it to her, or have it delivered to her, and it was done. Notice, the power over the status of the relationship was in the hands of the husband, not the courts. Here's God's law on this:

Deuteronomy 24:1 (KJV)
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Now, that's God's law. That's what God desires a man to do who divorces his wife. If a man did that today, would the civil court honor it??? Nope. It would overrule God's law and require them to go before the civil courts of Caesar to be granted a divorce. Notice that God's way is swift. It allows a quick death to the union, so that both parties can immediately begin healing and move on with their lives.

My point is this... you guys keep arguing that civil marriage doesn't violate God's law or God's word. But I've shown you repeated points wherein the civil law either neglects justice (which is expected of courts in God's Word) or wherein it invalidates God's Law entirely.

Just admit it with me, "civil marriage" (as it is today) isn't predicated upon the biblical ideals of marriage.

Now, perhaps this doesn't matter to you. And you're in good company, because it doesn't matter to most Christians. In fact, most Christians assume that biblical marriage and civil marriage are the same thing. But there are a growing number of us who have strong convictions that "civil marriage" as it is today violates the principles of God and how God's Word would govern marriage and divorce. Biblically speaking, marriage was based on a private contract or agreement established by the parents of the bride and groom, by the groom and the bride's father, or by the bride and groom themselves. It wasn't a "civil contract". In addition, to dissolve a marriage, a man didn't have to seek any civil court to request a divorce decree. He wrote the decree himself, delivered the decree, and enforced the decree, for it was his wife and his home. And if the woman wished to leave, it was the husband who could issue the decree, give it to her, and let her go.

God entrusted marriage, and the management of divorce, to the private hands of the individual's involved. God's Law didn't grant any civil government authority over such an intimate relationship. In a very real way, Biblical marriage was historically governed under natural law and under common law. The only time any court would be necessary is if one party felt they were being dealt with treacherously. But if both agreed to the terms of the union, and in the case of divorce, both agreed with the terms of the divorce, no court was needed. And this is what led to the tradition of actually writing out a "ketubah", the Jewish marriage contract. Again, it was a private contract written by the groom and agreed upon by all parties involved to clarify by contract what was agreed upon. And please note, each ketubah could be very different from another. Because it was based on the will of the families or the couple involved, not the state.

TO BE CONTINUED...

[Aquila]

CONTINUED...

Through much of your post here, and previous ones, it seems to come down to ease of divorce and cost of divorce. It's not really about the bible or what God wants. The posts have been mostly about civil marriage makes it hard and costly to divorce vs covenant marriage where you can quickly wash your hands of your marriage and not spend any money doing so.

Wow.

-I've covered marriage biblically being a private contract vs. a civil contract.

-I've covered how the marriage contract was biblically drafted by the groom, not the government.

-I've covered how the divorce decree was biblically drafted by the husband, not the government.

-I've covered how a biblical divorce required grounds, while civil courts do not and how courts are more than willing to reward money to the guilty party breaking the divorce contract, while God's Word does not.

-I've covered how the courts are often used to perform extortion by scrupulous spouses, while God requires justice.

-I've covered how the state abolished common law marriage, which was recognized as a natural right from ancient times.

-I've covered how the federal government usurped state authority regarding marriage statutes.

-I've covered how the state circumvents God's requirement of parental approval, especially when the bride lives under her father's roof. As long as a couple is of age, they can side-step parents and marry with state approval even if the bride still lives with her father.

-I've covered how the Scriptures admonish Christians NOT to settle legal disputes before unbelieving courts, and how a civil marriage requires a couple to settle a failed marriage in unbelieving civil courts.

-I've covered how Paul releases the believer abandoned by an unbelieving spouse from any bondage to the union, yet the civil courts would argue that Paul has no authority on the matter and that the couple must indeed undergo the civil court process to be released from being bound to the union.

-I've covered the racist intent of the state to regulate mixed marriages and how it gave birth to the marriage licensing procedure.

-I've covered how the state solemnizes gay marriage within the same civil statutes that solemnize straight marriages.

-I've covered how various Christian groups have historically resisted civil marriage. I've even cited examples ranging from Quakers to a Southern Baptist Pastor, who I quoted extensively.

But out of all that I've presented you... all you can draw from it is, "it seems to come down to ease of divorce and cost of divorce".

All I can say is "wow". Talk about "selective reading".

[MarieA27]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If anyone has a spouse who will always prove to be faithful and never turn around and purposefully seek to destroy you, you're blessed.

But God help the man who thinks his marriage stands and faces a demon possessed wife who files for a "no fault" divorce seemingly out of the blue. The courts won't care if she's been unfaithful. Nor will it care that you were faithful to the contract. The two of you are, in the eyes of the court, just an entity incorporated by the state. And the state will liquidate and distribute all the assets and wealth of your incorporation as statute demands.

Well, that's the problem you get into when you marry because you "love" someone and only ask for God's blessings, instead of hunkering down and asking God if it's really His will for you to marry such and such.

That's not to say that there won't be any problems at all in the marriage, but you have God to fall back on since He would be the one telling you to marry your spouse.

To many people, even apostolics, just just jump into things, making big, life altering decisions, without truly consulting God about it, and get into horrible situations, and make a big mess of their lives.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MarieA27

Well, that's the problem you get into when you marry because you "love" someone and only ask for God's blessings, instead of hunkering down and asking God if it's really His will for you to marry such and such.

That's not to say that there won't be any problems at all in the marriage, but you have God to fall back on since He would be the one telling you to marry your spouse.

To many people, even apostolics, just just jump into things, making big, life altering decisions, without truly consulting God about it, and get into horrible situations, and make a big mess of their lives.

This is true regardless of what form of marriage one might believe in.

And even then, we have free will. God may very well have chosen our spouse, but our spouse can still choose to betray us or even choose apostasy one day.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

What if her family and church elders bless the couples union and recognize it as a marriage in the eyes of God?

I agree, the state is under no obligation to recognize their marriage, but the state cannot determine if their union is a marriage in God's eyes or not.

Listen, I personally know people who were home births. They have no SS numbers. They will not be able to get a driver's license. The Apostle Paul used his government standing to get him out of trouble. God recognizes good behavior, and the laws are set in motion by Him. You were eating breakfast naked with your live in girlfriend. You are NOT a Quaker, so your baloney about a Quaker wedding is a lie. The Apostle Paul also mentioned about being joined to a prostitute, becoming one flesh with her (not calling your girlfriend a prostitute) . But marriage was a union which was listed not by a church, but by the governing rule of Israel and Rome. Marriage in the Roman occupation was listed through Roman census. You had to bring your wife, and kids. The Empire needed to know how many people were under their rule. So, while you believe in a Hippy Jesus love in, and that you want to sit around eating Fruit Loops with your live in girlfriend and call it good. God knows the real deal.

Oh, don't PM me your admonishments on what I should do in a crisis.

I don't respect you or your judgement.

My prayer for you is a hope you will repent in Jesus name.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This is true regardless of what form of marriage one might believe in.

And even then, we have free will. God may very well have chosen our spouse, but our spouse can still choose to betray us or even choose apostasy one day.

Well, if you get a divorce this time, do you go back to the Quakers?

What a joke.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Listen, I personally know people who were home births. They have no SS numbers. They will not be able to get a driver's license.

They are breaking the laws of the USA/State and on their way to hell for it, just like Aquila, right?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Listen, I personally know people who were home births. They have no SS numbers. They will not be able to get a driver's license. The Apostle Paul used his government standing to get him out of trouble. God recognizes good behavior, and the laws are set in motion by Him. You were eating breakfast naked with your live in girlfriend. You are NOT a Quaker, so your baloney about a Quaker wedding is a lie. The Apostle Paul also mentioned about being joined to a prostitute, becoming one flesh with her (not calling your girlfriend a prostitute) . But marriage was a union which was listed not by a church, but by the governing rule of Israel and Rome. Marriage in the Roman occupation was listed through Roman census. You had to bring your wife, and kids. The Empire needed to know how many people were under their rule. So, while you believe in a Hippy Jesus love in, and that you want to sit around eating Fruit Loops with your live in girlfriend and call it good. God knows the real deal.

My prayer for you is a hope you will repent in Jesus name.

I am happy to see that you are alright. I was worried about you. I also have another friend who road out the storm in Miami. Our prayers, along with those of most of the country, were with you.

As for this discussion:

I've taken note of your opinion.

I agree with this pastor. Please note, this pastor is not a Quaker.

"By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State. I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

George Washington was married without a marriage license. Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license?" In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically.

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.
" ~ Pastor Matt Trewhell