Marriage

[MacBestus]

This is completely new concept to me (not exactly new, but the first time I have heard it from a pastoral point of view). So I am curious, if this is the path to marriage, then when divorce happens (as is written in the Bible), and it DOES happen, how does that work? Does the couple just separate and go their own way? Or is there more to it?

Well it depends on the agreements going in. I have no experience with the dissolution of non licensed marriage. But i always recommend a letter of understanding be put into place. If someone leaves such an arrangement and it is beyond the scope of the church to mediate then they have obviously left the church's teachings and can avail themselves of the civil courts that they have joined by leaving the church if need be.

 

[NewWine]

Hmm Okay thank you.

 

[MacBestus]

Hmm Okay thank you.

You are welcome. Although I feel my answer less than satisfied you.

You must understand that people who enterinto this kind of marriage do so knowing they have a different exit strategy than those who enter civil marriage. For most that strategy is called death.

If for some reason the perversion issue comes up (adultery etc) than the couple can go to the church with it.

Sometimes couples are willing to work through these things. Sometimes not.

 

[Billyd]

In the example I provided, the couple had made a commitment to each other to live together as husband and wife for life before they moved in together. This is a common practice among the youth of today. Is this commitment by the couple sufficient to join the couple together according to God. It is a legal marriage in some states. In the years past, it was called a common law marriage, and in the US the following states still allow it to some extent.

Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

 

[MacBestus]

In the example I provided, the couple had made a commitment to each other to live together as husband and wife for life before they moved in together. This is a common practice among the youth of today. Is this commitment by the couple sufficient to join the couple together according to God. It is a legal marriage in some states. In the years past, it was called a common law marriage, and in the US the following states still allow it to some extent.

Alabama
Colorado
District of Columbia
Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
Iowa
Kansas
Montana
New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Utah

Plainly yes without more information. That is a biblical marriage.

 

[presidente]

Marriage falls into this category. Taxes are not regulated by the law of YHWH either in Torah or the New Testament. They are
Mans law regulated mans governments.

Why not see marriage as regulated by God, but the requirement to file with the state as a requirement of the state?

The 'requirement' is one not often enforced, but some states still have unenforced fornication laws still on the books.

So what was the procedure for marriage. Relatives talked. Made deals. Had a party. Husband and wife made a vow. Witnessed by public. Consummated the vow. Voila married! Living together was the norm but not required.

People who live together today and intend to forever are biblically married. They do not need a piece of government paper for Heavens sake. Only for mans. And that is a usurpation.

Where do you get the idea that people who live together and intend to forever are married? If that were the case, why was the father's approval necessary after a man had seduced a woman and was required to marry her. Her father could take the bride price, but not give her to him in marriage.

Some time after Jane Austen, things shifted to where the decision to marry was put solely on the couple in Anglo society, but where is this idea in the Bible?

 

[presidente]

This is completely new concept to me (not exactly new, but the first time I have heard it from a pastoral point of view). So I am curious, if this is the path to marriage, then when divorce happens (as is written in the Bible), and it DOES happen, how does that work? Does the couple just separate and go their own way? Or is there more to it?

The other preachers and churches consider them not to be married. So they just can say they sinned by living in fornication for a year.

As far as Christians go, being legally married does have something to do with whether society considers you married. At least in the US it does. I don't think a government's approve is necessary, universally. There are people who live in the jungles of Indonesia who have no interaction with the government and little or no interaction with other societies, who marry according to village custom, but don't register with the government offices they know nothing about. I'm not saying they are not married. But in a society like the US, if you don't legally marry, most Christians consider that shacking up.

I can understand the reaction, because of the Supreme Court's ludicrous decision that redefined marriage, but I don't think doing away with legal marriage works in western culture. Divorce laws are prejudiced against men, and some don't want to legally marry to allow themselves an out.

 

[MacBestus]

Why not see marriage as regulated by God, but the requirement to file with the state as a requirement of the state?

The 'requirement' is one not often enforced, but some states still have unenforced fornication laws still on the books.




Where do you get the idea that people who live together and intend to forever are married? If that were the case, why was the father's approval necessary after a man had seduced a woman and was required to marry her. Her father could take the bride price, but not give her to him in marriage.

Some time after Jane Austen, things shifted to where the decision to marry was put solely on the couple in Anglo society, but where is this idea in the Bible?

You.ask:"Why not see marriage as regulated by God, but the requirement to file with the state as a requirement of the state?*"

And that is a great question. At the highest level simply because it is a slippery slope. Where does it end? Should the State be allowed to regulate non criminal religious institutions? Should we allow the state to say no to a marriage for any reason we place them before YHWH and should we allow them to say yes we state that their permission supplants that of the church. And this is an issue spoken of at great length in old and new testaments. In fact Messiah actually toughened the Torah here.
This is solely His domain.

On a lower level because we then have to accept the States rules as supplanting YHWH'S rules and turn his institution i to one with easy divorce. Homosexual marriage. People are even marrying animals trees and the ocean. This is not His.

In response to.
"The 'requirement' is one not often enforced, but some states still have unenforced fornication laws still on the books.?

Yes. No one said there was no risks in serving Him. Ask Daniel what Civil Disobedience he faced. ask Shadrach meshac and abednego. Etc. However the risk here is slight at best.

We continue:
"Where do you get the idea that people who live together and intend to forever are married? If that were the case, why was the father's approval necessary after a man had seduced a woman and was required to marry her. Her father could take the bride price, but not give her to him in marriage.*"

I believe I said the family dealt with each other first. Please look again.

"So what was the procedure for marriage. Relatives talked. Made deals. Had a party. Husband and wife made a vow. Witnessed by public. Consummated the vow. Voila married! Living together was the norm but not required.*"

People today who live together and have made a vow are biblically married. If the girls father is against it she is sinning twice by dishonoring his wishes. And the groom once. They are sins that need repentance. But biblical minded fathers would not be eager to break the union to make it fornication compounding the sin. And biblically minded children would understand this as well. The non biblically minded wouldn't care.

You go on:
"Some time after Jane Austen, things shifted to where the decision to marry was put solely on the couple in Anglo society, but where is this idea in the Bible?"

I never put this forth as biblical. But it is in there none the less. I am assuming you do not mean couples choosing each other as opposed to arranged marriages. You have moses choosing his second wife and his family objecting. YHWH gave Moses sister leprosy over that. Jacob chose Rachel. Had Leah forced on him. Although there was dealing involved. Elopement is covered by Torah. The brides father had right to anull but it is doubtful he would have as no one else would have likely married her.

Bear in mind that combining biblical a d secular marriage rules will probably not work. You will either have one or the other. And you should be sure both of you are on the same page.

 

[MacBestus]

The other preachers and churches consider them not to be married. So they just can say they sinned by living in fornication for a year.

As far as Christians go, being legally married does have something to do with whether society considers you married. At least in the US it does. I don't think a government's approve is necessary, universally. There are people who live in the jungles of Indonesia who have no interaction with the government and little or no interaction with other societies, who marry according to village custom, but don't register with the government offices they know nothing about. I'm not saying they are not married. But in a society like the US, if you don't legally marry, most Christians consider that shacking up.

I can understand the reaction, because of the Supreme Court's ludicrous decision that redefined marriage, but I don't think doing away with legal marriage works in western culture. Divorce laws are prejudiced against men, and some don't want to legally marry to allow themselves an out.

You say:"The other preachers and churches consider them not to be married. So they just can say they sinned by living in fornication for a year."

This statement is deeply troubling. If you believed you were married biblically you should not lie to marry someone else in a different fellowship. That could be adultery according to Messiah.

And if you didn't consider yourself married you WERE fornicating.

You continue.
"As far as Christians go, being legally married does have something to do with whether society considers you married. "

We are called to be in the world not of the world. I know many people who live in the US who have been married this way. I have personally performed marriage services for them. Usually the brides file a change of name. But not always.

No one considers them to be not married but some state governments. It really does not affect them. At hospitals they say they are married. They have the same name. They have insurance together. Everything except taxes. And i am not sure if some file married or not.

Have you ever been asked to show your marriage license for anything?

There is no stigma. There is no problems. This has been going on for a very long time.


"At least in the US it does. I don't think a government's approve is necessary, universally. There are people who live in the jungles of Indonesia who have no interaction with the government and little or no interaction with other societies, who marry according to village custom, but don't register with the government offices they know nothing about. I'm not saying they are not married. But in a society like the US, if you don't legally marry, most Christians consider that shacking up."

Then those Christians need to read their bible. This is one of those slippery slope issues. The Christians you are speaking about have put the state in front of YHWH for marriage. That is shameful. I hope you witness to them about it.

You go on."I can understand the reaction, because of the Supreme Court's ludicrous decision that redefined marriage, but I don't think doing away with legal marriage works in western culture."

Well not exactly true. Large religious groups have NEVER gotten marriage licenses even in America. Groups such as the Amish and the Huttetrites. Many Baptist assemblies never have gotten marriage licenses and the same with some quaker groups. Most Mennonites do not nor swiss apolistics. Some Jewish groups also Lots of free Evangelical groups as well. Chances are if you live in the USA or UK you might know a married couple that never filed a certificate and are pillars of their community. They consider shacking up a temporary thing and would be appalled you think that is what their marriage is. They just file name changes and say they are married...because they are.

You go on:
" Divorce laws are prejudiced against men, and some don't want to legally marry to allow themselves an out."

You need to be equally yoked. Colossians and Thessalonians speak to this. Along with Proverbs.

 

[phil36]

Hi MacBestus,

I find your claim dubious. Pan denominational? I dont think so.. of course I could be wrong. If your in the Uk, these things can be easily found out.. each denomination usually has a body i.e Baptist union, Methodist church of great britain, CoE, CoS, Fiecc, etc etc... just check their websites.

It would be interesting to see the pan denominational data?

 

[MacBestus]

Hi MacBestus,

I find your claim dubious. Pan denominational? I dont think so.. of course I could be wrong. If your in the Uk, these things can be easily found out.. each denomination usually has a body i.e Baptist union, Methodist church of great britain, CoE, CoS, Fiecc, etc etc... just check their websites.

It would be interesting to see the pan denominational data?

If you are in England or Wales you can be married without license in any Anglican church by calling of Baans. It should be easy to google that so you know I am not making it up. As far as Scotland. It was legal for any minister to marry without a license. It fell under "cohabitation by repute".And was full on legal marriage. They stopped it in 2006 or 2007. I am quite sure that's provable on google too. Since then Scotlands ministers have continued the practice quietly. Although not all to be sure.

So the largest assembly in the UK will openly marry you without a civil license. And many of the smaller ones do it anyway.

This is hardly a secret to be sussed out from parent agencies.

This is a more important issue for Countries like America that do not give a religious option. In these countries believers have to figure out things on their own.

In the USA this movement has been growing steadily since marriage licenses were introduced in some States to stop interracial marriages. The recent Homosexual marriage rulings have caused the practice to grow more swiftly.

 

[presidente]

You.ask:"Why not see marriage as regulated by God, but the requirement to file with the state as a requirement of the state?*"And that is a great question. At the highest level simply because it is a slippery slope. Where does it end? Should the State be allowed to regulate non criminal religious institutions? Should we allow the state to say no to a marriage for any reason we place them before YHWH and should we allow them to say yes we state that their permission supplants that of the church. And this is an issue spoken of at great length in old and new testaments. In fact Messiah actually toughened the Torah here.

Where did Jesus say anything about registering your marriage with the state? You speak of letting the state regulate things. What choice do you have? The Bible doesn't assume democracy either.Biblically, why should there be a conflict between registering a marriage and your faith? I know some of the Anabaptist groups like the Amish considering all kinds of things most Christians consider normal to be proper interaction with the world. Depending on the group, that might be hooking up to the 'world' by having electricity, registering marriages, etc. Most Christians don't see it that way.We should definitely realize that there is more to marriage than the state recognizing it. If the state doesn't recognize marriage, that doesn't mean it is invalid. The falsely so called 'gay' falsely so-called 'marriage' decision showed a problem with letting the state define marriage. But why should it be a problem to get a marriage license if you are legitimately married? The issues of conscience I see are with parents, relatives, other people in the church and society who say a couple aren't married because they didn't get legally married.

On a lower level because we then have to accept the States rules as supplanting YHWH'S rules and turn his institution i to one with easy divorce. Homosexual marriage. People are even marrying animals trees and the ocean. This is not His.

We can not recognize unbiblical divorce, so-called 'gay marriage', and marriages to animals and trees and still register our marriages with the state.

Yes. No one said there was no risks in serving Him. Ask Daniel what Civil Disobedience he faced. ask Shadrach meshac and abednego. Etc. However the risk here is slight at best.

Why would serving God entail not getting a marriage license? Have you heard of a requirement to bow down to an idol to get a marriage license?

We continue:"Where do you get the idea that people who live together and intend to forever are married? If that were the case, why was the father's approval necessary after a man had seduced a woman and was required to marry her. Her father could take the bride price, but not give her to him in marriage.*"I believe I said the family dealt with each other first. Please look again.

okay.

"So what was the procedure for marriage. Relatives talked. Made deals. Had a party. Husband and wife made a vow. Witnessed by public. Consummated the vow. Voila married! Living together was the norm but not required.*"

'Let not the wife depart from her husband' implies they live together, doesn't it.

People today who live together and have made a vow are biblically married. If the girls father is against it she is sinning twice by dishonoring his wishes. And the groom once. They are sins that need repentance. But biblical minded fathers would not be eager to break the union to make it fornication compounding the sin. And biblically minded children would understand this as well. The non biblically minded wouldn't care.

If vows did not make the couple married in the Bible, why would it now? What about middle schoolers that swear life-time commitment to one another as boyfriend and girlfriend? Why would modern western social custom be binding, but not legal marriage certificates?

I never put this forth as biblical. But it is in there none the less. I am assuming you do not mean couples choosing each other as opposed to arranged marriages. You have moses choosing his second wife and his family objecting. YHWH gave Moses sister leprosy over that.

Miriam was not Moses' wife's father.

Elopement is covered by Torah. The brides father had right to anull but it is doubtful he would have as no one else would have likely married her.

I've seen the 'seduction' section title, but not elopement. Calling it 'elopment' legitimizes it. It's fornication.

 

[presidente]

You say:"The other preachers and churches consider them not to be married. So they just can say they sinned by living in fornication for a year."

This statement is deeply troubling. If you believed you were married biblically you should not lie to marry someone else in a different fellowship. That could be adultery according to Messiah.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a commitment, not a church wedding ceremony. Some men don't want a marriage license so things can end more easily down the road.

Have you ever been asked to show your marriage license for anything?

Late at night my wife and I arrived in a certain city in Indonesia. We were in our 20's, and newly weds. We hadn't anticipated needing a marriage license. They accepted a wedding photo instead.

"At least in the US it does. I don't think a government's approve is necessary, universally. There are people who live in the jungles of Indonesia who have no interaction with the government and little or no interaction with other societies, who marry according to village custom, but don't register with the government offices they know nothing about. I'm not saying they are not married. But in a society like the US, if you don't legally marry, most Christians consider that shacking up." Then those Christians need to read their bible. This is one of those slippery slope issues. The Christians you are speaking about have put the state in front of YHWH for marriage. That is shameful. I hope you witness to them about it.

I wasn't thinking of villagers who were necessarily Christian. I think you are being judgmental of Christians. Since the majority of Christians in the US do not see a real Biblical or theological reason not to get a marriage certificate, those who don't want them may at times be suspected of not being serious about marriage.

 

[MacBestus]

Where did Jesus say anything about registering your marriage with the state? You speak of letting the state regulate things. What choice do you have? The Bible doesn't assume democracy either.Biblically, why should there be a conflict between registering a marriage and your faith? I know some of the Anabaptist groups like the Amish considering all kinds of things most Christians consider normal to be proper interaction with the world. Depending on the group, that might be hooking up to the 'world' by having electricity, registering marriages, etc. Most Christians don't see it that way.We should definitely realize that there is more to marriage than the state recognizing it. If the state doesn't recognize marriage, that doesn't mean it is invalid. The falsely so called 'gay' falsely so-called 'marriage' decision showed a problem with letting the state define marriage. But why should it be a problem to get a marriage license if you are legitimately married? The issues of conscience I see are with parents, relatives, other people in the church and society who say a couple aren't married because they didn't get legally married. We can not recognize unbiblical divorce, so-called 'gay marriage', and marriages to animals and trees and still register our marriages with the state. Why would serving God entail not getting a marriage license? Have you heard of a requirement to bow down to an idol to get a marriage license?okay.'Let not the wife depart from her husband' implies they live together, doesn't it.If vows did not make the couple married in the Bible, why would it now? What about middle schoolers that swear life-time commitment to one another as boyfriend and girlfriend? Why would modern western social custom be binding, but not legal marriage certificates?Miriam was not Moses' wife's father.I've seen the 'seduction' section title, but not elopement. Calling it 'elopment' legitimizes it. It's fornication.

Presidente...


I have never passed judgement on anyone and said this bypassing of State is a requirement. Nor have I stated that those who do get married in the state are wrong. What I have said is that not getting a marriage license is a valid choice for believers and why I personally follow this path with biblical reasons.

You say:"
Where did Jesus say anything about registering your marriage with the state? You speak of letting the state regulate things. What choice do you have? The Bible doesn't assume democracy either. " interesting thought. I disagree. The bible is full of civil disobedience for institutions governments have put into place that did not align with Our Fathers ways.

You continue; biblically, why should there be a conflict between registering a marriage and your faith?

Simply because when the state places itself in YHWHs role legislating things he has already regulated in a different manner we have the same mandate Yahshua did we he taught his apostles to follow the will of the Father over the laws of men.

The possibly most biblically detailed issue certainly seems like a bigger thing for civil disobedience than. Talmudic handwashing. And note... That the disciples were socially ostracized for it and did not care.


You continue.
"I know some of the Anabaptist groups like the Amish considering all kinds of things most Christians consider normal to be proper interaction with the world. Depending on the group, that might be hooking up to the 'world' by having electricity, registering marriages, etc. Most Christians don't see it that way.We should definitely realize that there is more to marriage than the state recognizing it."

This movement away from state weddings started among evangelicals and Baptists. Not all of course but some and growing. The Anabaptist sects. Including Mennonite not just amish and apostolics NEVER got them. Mennonites are far from a small group. They have electricity. They have respected and accredited universities.

They have famous and well respected members of their community.
Business people. Atheletes. Politicians. Theologians.
I encourage you to look up a list of famous Mennonites. Chances are you will know a few names

But one thing the majority do not have is marriage licenses. Some liberal Mennonites get them. Just not the majority. Are these people fornicating because they choose bible over state? That seems silly.

You continue.
" If the state doesn't recognize marriage, that doesn't mean it is invalid. The falsely so called 'gay' falsely so-called 'marriage' decision showed a problem with letting the state define marriage. But why should it be a problem to get a marriage license if you are legitimately married? " because this is a slippery slope. It leads to other registries. Ask people in China or North korea what it is like for registered Christians. Because it is a power YHWH kept for himself. Because my.marriage is NOT the same institution that homosexuals enter. Because I will not ask the state to step in for the Church. Because Messiah taught us not to allow those in power to usurp the Fathers ways. Is 5hat enough?


You go on:"The issues of conscience I see are with parents, relatives, other people in the church and society who say a couple aren't married because they didn't get legally married."

What a witnessing opportunity! Just like the pharisees wouldn't even sit at a table with the disciples because they would not do the things man added in as law.

You continue.
."Why would serving God entail not getting a marriage license? Have you heard of a requirement to bow down to an idol to get a marriage license?"

I think you forget the story a bit. It wasn't an idol. It was the king. The state. Daniel gave YHWH the honor due him instead of giving it to the crown

Daniel6:*7**All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellers, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any Elohim or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.
*8**Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.
*9**Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree.
*10**Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his Elohim, as he did aforetime.
*11**Then these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his Elohim.
12**Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king's decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any Elohim or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.

Starting to make sense?

We continue:"Where do you get the idea that people who live together and intend to forever are married? If that were the case, why was the father's approval necessary after a man had seduced a woman and was required to marry her. Her father could take the bride price, but not give her to him in marriage.*"

I believe I said the family dealt with each other first. Please look again. And in the other comment I said barring more information. Family should definitely be on board as long as they are in the faith.

okay.
You go on.
"So what was the procedure for marriage. Relatives talked. Made deals. Had a party. Husband and wife made a vow. Witnessed by public. Consummated the vow. Voila married! Living together was the norm but not required.*"

'Let not the wife depart from her husband' implies they live together, doesn't it."

No. It doesn't imply anything. It plainly states what it means.
Once you are married you are married. There are many biblical examples of husbands and wives living apart. Abraham and Sarah were living in different countries at her death.... But were still married. As i said it is the norm not the requirement.


"If vows did not make the couple married in the Bible, why would it now? " it did as long as hey consummated and there were. No familial objections. Many places still require this objection period be observed. Such Baans in the UK or speak now or forever hold your piece in services.

as. To "What about middle schoolers that swear life-time commitment to one another as boyfriend and girlfriend?"

Are biblically minded parents allowing them opportunities to consummate? there seems bigger problems here.

You go on.
"Why would modern western social custom be binding, but not legal marriage certificates?"

whoever said that? Silly really. A vow is a vow. People I said are divorcing in the state and revowing under YHWH are not reneging their vow but shifting its authority to YHWH from the state. The very idea!

You continue.
"I've seen the 'seduction' section title, but not elopement. Calling it 'elopment' legitimizes it. It's fornication."

I do not know what the seduction section title means.

However as far as elopement goes. If it is not annulled the bible calls it marriage. You do not have the right to change his word...

 

[MacBestus]

I'm thinking more along the lines of a commitment, not a church wedding ceremony. Some men don't want a marriage license so things can end more easily down the road. Late at night my wife and I arrived in a certain city in Indonesia. We were in our 20's, and newly weds. We hadn't anticipated needing a marriage license. They accepted a wedding photo instead.I wasn't thinking of villagers who were necessarily Christian. I think you are being judgmental of Christians. Since the majority of Christians in the US do not see a real Biblical or theological reason not to get a marriage certificate, those who don't want them may at times be suspected of not being serious about marriage.

You say:"I'm thinking more along the lines of a commitment, not a church wedding ceremony. Some men don't want a marriage license so things can end more easily down the road."


Not believers. Maybe tares... They will leave secular brides as well. Wedding vow is wedding vow in a church or in your uncles lounge.

1 Timothy 5:8**But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

You answer me:
"Have you ever been asked to show your marriage license for anything?

Late at night my wife and I arrived in a certain city in Indonesia. We were in our 20's, and newly weds. We hadn't anticipated needing a marriage license. They accepted a wedding photo instead."

That's a first lol. If you had been married without a notice you still would have had that picture. Did you carry the notice after that?

You continue:"I wasn't thinking of villagers who were necessarily Christian. I think you are being judgmental of Christians."

I do not feel I was being judgemental of people who gain Secular marriages. Sorry for any offense. My initial and current position was to protect those who marry without that paper with just a vow. Which some on here appear to think is shacking up or fornicating in defiance of biblical teachings. This position is replacing the words of the YHWH with the idol of State.

You say.
"Since the majority of Christians in the US do not see a real Biblical or theological reason not to get a marriage certificate, those who don't want them may at times be suspected of not being serious about marriage."

Only among certain sets as i have shown. Whole denominations shun them. These people you speak of need to spend more time studying the issue.

 

[oldethennew]

Lots of great responses.

What must a couple do to be married in the eyes of God?

===========================================================
they will come to know that their destiny is in the Heart of God -
and they will Trust Him in all things concerning their here and their tomorrow...

 

[presidente]

MacBestus,

Usually, it seems like those who want to get married without doing it with the state seem to be hippie types. That's the impression I get. When you raised the topic, I didn't think about the Amish, who don't take social security. So it makes sense that they wouldn't get marriage licenses.

I realize that may be changing as the state gets further away from the Biblical concept of marriage. It started first with divorce and remarriage. Many churches err by just following state decisions on divorce. If someone isn't divorced Biblicall, the state shouldn't accept it. If the state just decided to legally divorce all couples and say they aren't married, should we all follow their decision? The so-called 'gay marriage' thing is another departure from scripture, history, and plain common sense.

But if we understand what God wants, we can still register legitimate marriages with the state while rejecting illegitimate divorces and so-called marriages. We don't have to take what is God's and give it to the state to get marriage licenses.

Common law and case law in the US are so detailed and flexible that they can legally acknowledge all types of marriages. In the US, that is complicated because statute and precedent varies by state depending on statute and precedent. States can legally recognized marriages that don't have actual licenses. Some of these marriages are 'legal marriages'.

My wife and I do not carry a marriage certificate around, but we may carry a photocopy if we go back to that city, or maybe some of the other cities that are religious and conservative in Indonesia. We need to make a trip out there again.

 

[Namiette]

The marriage starts when you do what your society requires for a marriage to start.

In our european culture it means to get a public ceremony with somebody who has the authority in the society. Its the representant of the state or of the church.

No private promises nor sex are the beginning of a marriage.

If you live on some isolated island or in a jungle, the rule can be different.

Glad to hear that.
I know about one girl whose boyfriend wanted her to find a passage about the beginning of marriage in the Bible to prove that she's not married or tied up to her ex-boyfriend with whom she shared a bed one weekend. With regard to this, she's feeling better now.

 

[phil36]

If you are in England or Wales you can be married without license in any Anglican church by calling of Baans. It should be easy to google that so you know I am not making it up. As far as Scotland. It was legal for any minister to marry without a license. It fell under "cohabitation by repute".And was full on legal marriage. They stopped it in 2006 or 2007. I am quite sure that's provable on google too. Since then Scotlands ministers have continued the practice quietly. Although not all to be sure.

So the largest assembly in the UK will openly marry you without a civil license. And many of the smaller ones do it anyway.

This is hardly a secret to be sussed out from parent agencies.

This is a more important issue for Countries like America that do not give a religious option. In these countries believers have to figure out things on their own.

In the USA this movement has been growing steadily since marriage licenses were introduced in some States to stop interracial marriages. The recent Homosexual marriage rulings have caused the practice to grow more swiftly.

Hi Macbestus


Much of what you have said sounds good, however it is very misleading. As I said it is very easy to go to the source to find out the legality of marriage in whatever country you live in. Rather than relying on google searches go to the sources.

Church of England here : https://www.yourchurchwedding.org/article/do-we-need-a-marriage-licence/

or http://www.gloucester.anglican.org/content/pages/documents/1451988021.pdf


For Church of Scotland here:

https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//registration/rm1-leaflet-revised.pdf


UK in general here: https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/overview


I have just received an email back from a Church of Scotland minister, and he said that Common law 'marriage' is not something the Church does.

In fact if you read here common law marriage or cohabitation with habit and repute, is really actually a couple living together without the bonds of marriage and all that entails in our society, in our times.... basicaly Fornication.

Read here for a more legal aspect (its fornication no matter how you dress it up): Common Law Marriage – Have we moved on?

Oh and by the way Banns are legally binding.

Again I think you are giving out a lot of mis - information, Banns are contractual whether you agree with it or not.

The law of the land does not contradict the bible regarding marriage between male and female so why would you not want to follow the law, like a law abiding citizen? That would be the Christians duty!

 

[trofimus]

Glad to hear that.
I know about one girl whose boyfriend wanted her to find a passage about the beginning of marriage in the Bible to prove that she's not married or tied up to her ex-boyfriend with whom she shared a bed one weekend. With regard to this, she's feeling better now.

I dont think sex is the beginning of a marriage.

On the other hand, it should lead to marriage if it happened.