|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 8:26:00 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 1756
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
When we disobey the laws of our earthly nation we dishonour God by disobeying the specific command that he has given to us -- that we should live in proper submission to our governing authorities.
However, that is a separate offense, and I do not believe that doing so actually voids the theological/spiritual effects of of marital-style vows that were done in violation of man's law, but in accordance with Christian community life and leadership.
It's just that no leader ought to be committing and condoning the sin of lawlessness on the one hand, by participating in a wedding that is in violation of the legal processes for getting one's self married. Therefore, unless there were really extenuating circumstances, no Christian, much less a leader would be interested in letting you go forward with the process of an undocumented marriage... so then who would be making the vows and ceremony binding and public within the Christian community, which would be boycotting such a lawless choice in the first place.
One should not attempt to do good by evil means. If one wants to get married, legal processes should be followed (unless they are impossible or carry a strong risk).
Anybody in our circumstances (civilized western world) that wants to avoid documentation for their marriage is strongly suspect for just playing at commitment without actually making one (since the legal documentation is so attainable, yet they still don't want to)... hence the 'shacking up' references.
(The idea that one can disobey the gov't when the gov't asks one to commit sin, refrain from following a Biblical command, or abandon Christianity falls under the prerogative of obeying God before men -- but the documentation of marriage is not something that fits in that category. Christians are not free to be totally lawless, just to retain their faith in a lawless way, if that becomes necessary.)
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/27/2009 8:26:19 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6721
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: -Remy-
quote:
Accoreding to Romans 13:1-3 Z (That would be in the New Testament) if a Christian breaks man's laws, he breaks God's commandment to keep man's laws, therefore he breaks God's law.
By this logic wouldn't all early Christians be condemned to hell for illegally practicing Christianity in violation of Roman law? I can't understand the logic of equating a fallible man made law with the law of an infallible God.
If someone can help me better understand this I would appreciate it greatly.
Peace
-Remy
You might look at Acts 5:29 and related verses; when man's law contradicts God's law then we are to follow god's law and suffer the consequence of disobeying man's law.
You sight a good example of when Christianity was outlawed; the Christians followed God's law instead of Roman law; and many paid with their lives for it.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/29/2009 11:22:26 AM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
Is this the best you have? I expect remarks such as these from people who cannot logically and adequately defend their position. The fact is, I have articulated a strong criticism of your position, what is up for grabs is whether you have ever made a strong logical argument in support of your claim. Those are the facts, your remark above is the fiction. Put on the rubby slippers, tap them three times, and return from the land of fiction to reality.
You have failed, miserably, to refer to any state law which states no marriage exists without a marriage license. No state law says anything remotely close to this but rather the state laws are properly understood as stating no marriage exists as a matter of law without a marriage license. People can still be married, and so joined together, as a matter of religious faith, ritual, and practice, regardless of the fact they have not officially recorded their marriage with the proper state authority.
A marriage license is a pre-requisite for the state and its laws to formally recognize the marriage, however, no state law says a marriage license is a pre-requisite for marriage to exist as a matter of religious practice, faith, ritual, belief, or custom. Your failure to acknowledge this distinction is a fatal flaw of your argument. In fact, it is this distinction which would allow marriage to exist, in the eyes of God, should the state, tomorrow, abolish ALL marriages. Your argument fails and continue to fails as a result of acknowledging this distinction and adequately addressing it or refuting it.
Now, if, however, you insist on resting a valid marriage in the eyes of God upon the state's legal recognition of it, then this grandiose reasoning leads us to the following absurd result.
Many couples get married on a Saturday. On Saturday most if not all government offices are closed, including the clerks office. In my state, a marriage is not officially legal until the license is signed by all the parties, bride, groom, two witnesses, individual conducting the wedding scenario, and received by the clerk's office. Since the clerk's office is closed on Saturday and Sunday in all counties in the state of Indiana, the earliers the license can be received by the clerks office is Monday. However, in those instances where the couple goes on a honeymoon, and does not leave the responsibility to anyone else to see the marriage license is filed with the clerk's office, the marriage license is probably not given to the clerk's office until after the honeymoon. Which necessarily means they are not a legally recognized married couple under state law.
Consequently, by your reasoning, the married couple is not really "married" on Saturday, after the ceremony is concluded, Sunday, or Monday through the following Sunday, in which they are out of town and on their honeymoony. They do not become married until 10 days later, after they return from their honeymoon, and file their marriage license with the clerk's office and the state officially recognizes their marriage, officially recognizes them as "married" at this time. Which means for 9 days they were not married and were fornicating sinners.
Now, this absurd result is where your reasoning leads us. In my example above, the couple is not married in the eyes of God because they have not filed their marriage license with the proper state authority yet, or while on their honeymoon, and consequently, the state does not recognize or acknowledge them as married as a matter of state law until such filing occurs. In the interim, they are an unmarried couple having sex on their honeymoon. The sinners!
As I said before, this reasoning you espouse leads to and results in absolutely illogical results, and consequently, I reject this reasoning on this basis.
May I ask why you are so insistant on trying to make "Shacking up" which is fornication not a sin; do you have a personal interest is that position?
Thanks
RC
Great, by your reasoning all of the Amish are fornicators because they do not have marriage licenses and neither have they undergone the proper steps to have the state recognize their marriage. Great argument.
quote:
In our state the marriage is official when the one officiating signs the license, and is officiall for a period of 5 days based on that signature (which is the reason that wedding officiatros must be registered with the county to be able to act as an agent for the county).
Great....but this ignores all those other states where the marriage is not official until the marriage license is A.) completed and B.) received by and officially recorded in the county recorders/county clerk's office, or some other properly designated state/county/city/ office. Necessarily then, by your logic, all of those married couples, on their honeymoons, are fornicating. Why? Because by your logic, God does not recognize their marriage until the state officially recognizes the marriage under state law. Now, this absurd result is where your reasoning leads us, and is summarily why it is a poor argument.
In addition, your logic leads us to the conclusion every Amish community, which does not have their marriages recorded on a marriage license and registered with the proper state authorities, are also fornicating sinners. Why? Because, according to your reasoning, God does not recognize any marriage in the Amish community unless and until it is officially recognized by the state.
quote:
May I ask why you are so insistant on trying to make "Shacking up" which is fornication not a sin; do you have a personal interest is that position?
Nice strawman argument RC. I have never taken this position. Try addressing what I have actually said.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/29/2009 12:24:22 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GregandJenny
Notre,
You have a certain window of opporitunity (waiting 3 days after you get your license to marry) to get your certificate filled out and sent in to be put on file.
To answer your questions:
1. I do believe that marriage must conform to state law when it is not directly against God's command. It's really simple.
3. The context that I would think it would be recognized would be outlined in your local church. God has given them authority. For instance, RC's church would have set up a process to get get married, divorced ect..., and we as church members would have to fall under that authority.
My question for you:
Since you seem to believe that marriage can be outside the authority of the government, How does that work. When is it shacking up and when is it marriage?
G
quote:
Where I live in WA there is paper work to fill out when you get your license to marry. Then when you're married by one who is legally able to marry you are married, your INTENT to get married is already on file THEREFORE your above scenario does not hold water.
Now you are not even making the same argument as before, so your remark my argument does not hold water is tenuous. Let's examine why.
First, you made it unequivocally clear what constituted as marriage, before God, was compliance with state law to have the marriage officially reconized under state law. Now, you have discarded this requirement, and substituted in its place the "intent" of the parties involved. Observe, intent to get married is not the same as the state officially recognizing the marriage. Now, you are telling me official state recognition is not absolutely necessary for marriage to qualify as a marriage before God, so long as the parties have demonstrated an "intent" to have their marriage recognized by the state.
So, here you make an exception to your rule of official recognition by the state of a marriage before marriage is recognized by God, and it is the "intent of the parties exception."
I would like to say more on this point but I have to go. I will say, however, your reasoning condemns most if not all Amish marriages.
quote:
1. I do believe that marriage must conform to state law when it is not directly against God's command. It's really simple.
However, where your argument begins to fall apart is assuming there are no other circumstances in which God does recognize a marriage, where such a marriage is not recognized by the state. I disagree and there is nothing to indicate to me, and indeed no argument has been made, to show or demonstrate God ONLY recognizes those marriages officially recognized by the state.
quote:
2. marriage is defined between a man and a woman, and is a fundemental institution created by God. If the Government tries to change that, then in my opinion The Word of God over rules that.
Yes, this is correct, which indicates to me official recognition by the state of God's institution is not a pre-requisite for God to recognize or acknowledge some couple is married.
quote:
Since you seem to believe that marriage can be outside the authority of the government, How does that work. When is it shacking up and when is it marriage?
I have already answered this question in a prior post and I suspect you know the answer. As I stated previously, an example of marriage, a marriage recognized by God, would be a wedding ceremony, in which a bridegroom and bride are present, with witnesses, and exchange vows to each other, make promises to each other, in front of the witnesses and the indvidual marrying them. The ceremony is documented in writing, with the date and time of the ceremony recorded, the signatures of the bridegroom and groom appear on the document and they signed such a document in the presence of those present at the ceremony, the individual marrying them also signes the document in the presences of those at the ceremony, and two or more witnesses at the ceremony also sign the document in the presence of those at the ceremony. In this instances, they are married and are so arranged in the eyes of God.
Moving in with someone of the opposite sex, and sleeping with them, is not marriage in the eyes of God, no matter how long they maintain this pattern of behavior. ( I say this generally, as I, not being all knowing and not being God, may be missing some scenario or circumstance in which God would consider a marriage to exist. I am not God and I am in no position to pass absolute judgment.)
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/29/2009 12:40:14 PM
|
|
|
bolt.
Posts: 1756
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
an example of marriage, a marriage recognized by God, would be a wedding ceremony, in which a bridegroom and bride are present, with witnesses, and exchange vows to each other, make promises to each other, in front of the witnesses and the individual marrying them. The ceremony is documented in writing, with the date and time of the ceremony recorded, the signatures of the bridegroom and groom appear on the document and they signed such a document in the presence of those present at the ceremony, the individual marrying them also signes the document in the presences of those at the ceremony, and two or more witnesses at the ceremony also sign the document in the presence of those at the ceremony. In this instances, they are married and are so arranged in the eyes of God.
There are lots of elements of that which we don't find in marriages from Biblical history (signatures, dated contract etc.) and there are some missing which would have been in marriages from Biblical history (consent of parents, transfer of property and rights).
It seems to me to be kind of unwise to just use one's own judgement on what might or might not be sufficient to be an acceptable marriage -- because opinions differ. Somebody's going to say, "Well, if we kneel together beside the bed and pray a vow, that'll do." And if we're just doing what seems reasonable to us as individuals, families or Church communities, there's going to be some shaky ground around all this.
Complying with the law of the land (when it's possible and safe to do so) is one of the best -- and Biblical -- ways to prevent the reign of personal judgement on an issue that is this fundamental to society. That's why when people of Christian-style values form societies, they make these kinds of standards... and it's a good thing.
We need to comply with marriage laws for a lot of reasons -- where there is good reason not to do so, then there needs to be a large dose of caution and community standards in place.
God's recognition does not depend on man's recognition -- but there are a lot of things about society that hinge on man's recognition. Also, it would be "leading little ones astray" for a leader to advise couples that thus-and-such a standard is enough, when it might not be -- and especially it would be a problem if the leader encouraged them to use their own judgement. It's good to live in a society that has formal channels for important institutions like marriage.
_____________________________
Are you having trouble getting your daily dose of the life changing Word of God?
Let my friend Brian at Daily Audio Bible help you too.
>>audio link<<
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/29/2009 1:27:13 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6721
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
Great, by your reasoning all of the Amish are fornicators because they do not have marriage licenses and neither have they undergone the proper steps to have the state recognize their marriage. Great argument.
I know nothing of the marriage laws in Pennsylvania nor much of the cuistoms of the Amish folks; but anhyone who disobeys the law of the land, unless God's law specifically counters that law of land are being disobedinet to the Word of God.
The Amish that I have know are very law abiding folks, so I really doubt that they are breaking any of the States laws, unless God's law overrides the state law.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/29/2009 1:32:56 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6721
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
quote:
May I ask why you are so insistant on trying to make "Shacking up" which is fornication not a sin; do you have a personal interest is that position?
Nice strawman argument RC. I have never taken this position. Try addressing what I have actually said.
Not a strawman NotreDame, but a serious inquiry as to why you so strongy oppose legal marriage.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/29/2009 2:04:59 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bolt.
quote:
an example of marriage, a marriage recognized by God, would be a wedding ceremony, in which a bridegroom and bride are present, with witnesses, and exchange vows to each other, make promises to each other, in front of the witnesses and the individual marrying them. The ceremony is documented in writing, with the date and time of the ceremony recorded, the signatures of the bridegroom and groom appear on the document and they signed such a document in the presence of those present at the ceremony, the individual marrying them also signes the document in the presences of those at the ceremony, and two or more witnesses at the ceremony also sign the document in the presence of those at the ceremony. In this instances, they are married and are so arranged in the eyes of God.
Somebody's going to say, "Well, if we kneel together beside the bed and pray a vow, that'll do." And if we're just doing what seems reasonable to us as individuals, families or Church communities, there's going to be some shaky ground around all this.
Complying with the law of the land (when it's possible and safe to do so) is one of the best -- and Biblical -- ways to prevent the reign of personal judgement on an issue that is this fundamental to society. That's why when people of Christian-style values form societies, they make these kinds of standards... and it's a good thing.
We need to comply with marriage laws for a lot of reasons -- where there is good reason not to do so, then there needs to be a large dose of caution and community standards in place.
quote:
There are lots of elements of that which we don't find in marriages from Biblical history
Yeah, and official state recognition was also not an element from Biblical times. However, some of the features between my scenario above and the Jewish custom of marriage ritual at the time of Jesus are: A.) contract...written evidence of the parties involved, the bridegroom negotiating with the father of the bride and such negotiations being recorded in ink on some medium. This is similar to the contract of documented marriage paper in my example. In other words, they work to effectuate the same goal, which is recorded evidence of a married couple. The groom then leaves to prepare a place for him and his bridegroom to reside, a home, a residence. B.) The groom then reappears before the bridegroom, usually a year later, in which the bridegroom is given advance warning of his return only by a shout, but otherwise the bridegroom does not know the exact time of the groom's return. The groom is accompanied with a best man and other friends, usually in a lighted procession. C.) The bridegroom would have a bridesmaid and friends with her when the groom appeared. D.) This wedding party would then return to the groom's father's house, or the groom's house, and upon arriving they would find wedding guests awaiting them. E.) The bride and groom would then enter a chamber, all to themselves, and consummate the marriage. After the marriage was consummated, the groom would appear to the wedding party and guests and announce the marriage had been consummated. This news was then spread and the wedding party and wedding guests celebrated for 7 days, the tenure of which the bridegroom remained in the chamber and hidden from the other people. F.) Upon the conclusion of the 7th day, the bridegroom exits the chamber, removes her veil, and publicly reveals to the people who she is, thereby revealing publicly the groom's wife.
Now, apparently, this scenario was sufficient to constitute as marriage before God. We know this because A.) Jesus refers to this marriage custom and parallels it to his leaving earth, perparing a place, and his return. The Church is bridegroom, Christ the groom, preparing a place for the Church in heaven, and returning unto and for his bridegroom. B.) This procedure was never condemned as inadequate or subjected to modification and revision to conform to Roman law, as Roman law at the time of Christ and afterwards regulated marriage. C.) Neither Paul or the apostles ever commented this procedure was not sufficient or would be insufficient or is insufficient when and if it ever conflicted with state law, or because of its failure to satisfy Roman law.
On this basis, then, I think it is very safe to conclude a procedure such as this one, or substantially similar to it as in my example, qualifies as marriage before God. No strong argument has been made as to why this procedure is all of a sudden inadequate or insufficient. The Amish and other secluded religious societies follow a marriage ritual similar to the Jewish one at the time of Christ, a marriage ritual similar to my example. On this basis, I think it is safe to conclude, as the Amish do, they are married before God. There are other Christian sects which do not believe in the use of state marriage licenses, asserting the state has no role or proper authority in an institution created by God.
In other words, what I am stating is those Jewish marriage traditions in existence in the OT, and certainly in existence at the time of Christ, are sufficient to constitute as a marriage before God. While there may be other ways to accomplish this task, this Jewish marriage tradition is one of them, and any ceremonies substantially similar or identical to this practice or custom will also result in a legitimate marriage before God.
quote:
Complying with the law of the land (when it's possible and safe to do so) is one of the best -- and Biblical -- ways to prevent the reign of personal judgement on an issue that is this fundamental to society.
Really? Obviously this is not true as the reasoning of RC James and Gregg and Jenny would have them passing personal judgments on any and all marriages not officially recognized by the state, such as those marriages in and amongst the Amish community, some Menonite communities, and any other religious society so situated. The existence of state laws in the area of a religious institution does not diminish personal judgments about situations related to the religious institution. Rather, they use the state laws as a sword and rely upon it to cut down and condemn any marriage not recognized by the state, thereby labelling the people as fornicating sinners, effectively condemning the Amish, some Menonites, and other secluded religious communities.
All the state law does is diminish personal judgment as a matter of state law but not as a matter of religious faith, and using human law to dictate to us their personal judgments of God's perception on an institution God created is problematic.
It is tantamount to the state licensing water baptismals and asserting God considers no one baptized unless they comply with state laws for officially recognizing a water baptismal. Personal judgments are not diminished here, merely because the state has interjected itself into a religious institution, but rather personal judgments persist, and at times become acrimonious, as people pass judgment on those who fail to comply with a state law where the state law touches upon and concerns itself with a religious institution, and an institution whose origins are religious.
Furthermore, I see this really as irrelevant and a red herring to the issue of whether a marriage is a marriage before God if the state does not officially recognize it or has not officially recognized it.
quote:
It seems to me to be kind of unwise to just use one's own judgement on what might or might not be sufficient to be an acceptable marriage -- because opinions differ.
Well, I have not done this and I think I have more clearly articulated to you in this post what exactly I am doing. However, to some extent, all of us are doing precisely the above, RC James, Greg/Jenny, and myself, and I submit some element of using one's own judgment is inevitable if not impossible to avoid when it comes to applying Biblical rules, principles, and doctrine to facts from the real world. So I really do not see this point as much of an objection to anything I or anyone else has been doing here.
quote:
God's recognition does not depend on man's recognition -- but there are a lot of things about society that hinge on man's recognition. Also, it would be "leading little ones astray" for a leader to advise couples that thus-and-such a standard is enough, when it might not be -- and especially it would be a problem if the leader encouraged them to use their own judgement. It's good to live in a society that has formal channels for important institutions like marriage.
I concur with your first expressed thought, as it is a point I have been emphasizing over the last several posts. Neither do I dispute the rest of the paragraph. However, none of what you said demonstrates to me God recognizes marriages which are not formally recognized by or under state law, and perhaps it was not your goal to make such a demonstration. I agree with much of what you said, but I also maintain official state recognition of a marriage is not necessary for God to also recognize marriage.
It is problematic when we construe the formal channels of society in regards to an institution created by God as God requiring those formal channels to participate in or enter into such an institution.
One of the best examples, I think, where marriage would persist and does persist is A.) Amish and other secluded religious societies, B.) if the state were to make illegal all heterosexual marriages or C.) the state refused to officially recognize any and all marriages
Marriage would still exist before God in the examples of B and C, which tells me the institution of marriage is not predicated upon any official or formal state recognition of marriage, or as you called it the "formal channels" of society. The fact is, RC James and Gregg/Jenny are making losing arguments on this one.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/29/2009 2:33:42 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
Great, by your reasoning all of the Amish are fornicators because they do not have marriage licenses and neither have they undergone the proper steps to have the state recognize their marriage. Great argument.
I know nothing of the marriage laws in Pennsylvania nor much of the cuistoms of the Amish folks; but anhyone who disobeys the law of the land, unless God's law specifically counters that law of land are being disobedinet to the Word of God.
The Amish that I have know are very law abiding folks, so I really doubt that they are breaking any of the States laws, unless God's law overrides the state law.
Thanks
RC
As alluded to before, some do but some do not, predicated upon how far they take their creed of separation from society, where society is known as the "English."
quote:
but anhyone who disobeys the law of the land, unless God's law specifically counters that law of land are being disobedinet to the Word of God.
Well, by this logic they are screwed, with a one way ticket to hell, for not complying with state compulsory laws. Most if not all Amish children stop attending public schools in 8th grade, well short of the permissible grade and year permitted for under state law.
quote:
The Amish that I have know are very law abiding folks, so I really doubt that they are breaking any of the States laws
Yeah, I suppose it just slipped your mind about their habit of not complying with state compulsory laws regarding school attendance. It is amazing God has permitted them to do so well for so blatantly sinning against him and his Word of obeying human government and its laws.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/29/2009 2:35:50 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
quote:
ORIGINAL: NotreDame
quote:
May I ask why you are so insistant on trying to make "Shacking up" which is fornication not a sin; do you have a personal interest is that position?
Nice strawman argument RC. I have never taken this position. Try addressing what I have actually said.
Not a strawman NotreDame, but a serious inquiry as to why you so strongy oppose legal marriage.
Thanks
RC
Well, now we have two strawman arguments. I never stated I was so strongly opposed to legal marriage and neither can my position logically be construed as stating such a proposition. Perhaps this is why the argument has persisted for so long, your misunderstanding of my argument. I am mystified as to what, if anything I said could lead you to think I am strongly opposed to legal marriage.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/29/2009 6:27:07 PM
|
|
|
Qtman
Posts: 6322
Joined: 3/21/2006
From: Crimson Tide Country
Status: offline
|
Some of the Menonites will honor State law and get a marriage license. They will even have a civil service. However, most of them are not considered married under the rules of the church until they actually have a church wedding under the authority of the Menonites. To the Menonites a wedding IS a religious service.
_____________________________
At one time Jesus was my co-pilot. Things are much better now that He and I have changed seats.
<Me & my happyplate at Lobster Hut
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/29/2009 10:18:46 PM
|
|
|
DeliveredDarling
Posts: 1781
Joined: 8/30/2007
Status: offline
|
Pardon me for not reading all 6 pages of responses  I looked up the word marriage in Greek and Hebrew. It was defined as conjugal rights and cohabitation. Now, my question here is, if it's not laid out in scripture as being a ceremony (if it is, please post reference  ), why would it be fornication. I recently visited Brazil and many there do not go through formal marriage ceremonies.
I wonder if what we are basing the premise that it is wrong, is because somewhere in our past upbringings, someone decide it needed to be "official". So that is how we do things now. As I understand it, marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Adam and Eve did not have a ceremony, but they did celebrate conjugal rights.....
Very interesting question!
_____________________________
"Now no one after lighting a lamp covers it over with a container, or puts it under a bed: but he puts it on a lampstand, in order that those who come in may see the light."
Luke 8:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/30/2009 9:31:23 AM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
Yeah, I suppose it just slipped your mind about their habit of not complying with state compulsory laws regarding school attendance.
I don't see any reason God should smite them.  In both cases they believed their understanding of God's law was more important than State law and decided that in order to honor Him, they had to disobey the State, with the understanding that the State had the right to mete out punishments if they could not legally defend their actions.
Are you sure they don't get marriage liscences? Or that it doesn't vary by group? I have long-term friendships with some in various groups and though I've seen tracts and teachings about all sorts of stuff, I've never seen anything opposed to getting a legally recognized marriage.
quote:
Ummm...about 50 years ago they ended up in court and got religious exemptions. They also were willing to go to accept the consequences (either jail or leave the country if necessary) so it wasn't a habit of convenience or laziness. They aren't currently breaking any laws that I know of. Not paying SS tax is something else they don't do but they have a religious exemption and they do not draw on SS.
Yeah, I knew this was going to be brought up and I have a simple reply. First, the case was Wisconsin v. Yoder, and I specifically failed to mention the case for the purpose of hoping someone else would mention it and I could make further points once it was mentioned. However, before illuminating the reasons why I was hoping someone else mentioned the case, I want to emphasize the following. Rrior to this case, which accommodated the Amish under the Free Exercise of Religion, they were violating the laws of the land. So I suppose all of the Amish who lived prior to this decision, and died before it, were hell bound sinners who failed to comply with the laws of the land. In addition, observe the Amish instituted this law suit for the express purpose of A.) Refusing to obey the state compulsory laws and B.) Have their refusal to state compulsory laws validated. Even before the case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Amish were not complying with compulsory laws. Rather than comply with the laws of the land until the Court decided in their favor, they chose to continue to disobey. The Amish had not been obeying, did not want to obey, wanted to continue to disobey, and so they sought to baptize their disobedience to state laws by going to court. So the position you espouse is still untenable.
Now, to illuminate the reasons why I did not mention this case, but was hoping someone else did.
A.) All Amish who lived and died prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision were in violation of state compulsory laws, thereby violating God's dictate to obey all human government and governmental laws. Which necessarily means then they were sinning, and died not complying with this part of state law.
B.) In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court accommodates them under the Free Exercise of Religion clause.
C.) On the basis of this decision, which was a man made decision, the Amish go from a religious group in violation of God's Word to compliance with God's word.
D.) So, with the stroke of the justice's pen, the Amish go from sinner to saint. Yet, all the Amish who came before this decision were not saints but sinners, violating God's command to obey state laws. I suppose God told those who came before this decision, "Sorry, had you lived until 1972 you would have been living in compliance with my commands to obey the laws of the land. Since you died before the law was changed, and consequently were living in rebellion to the law, you are a sinner. Hell is your eternal reward." This is where the logic of those who take a strict and literal reading of those verses from the Bible leads us.
quote:
I don't see any reason God should smite them. In both cases they believed their understanding of God's law was more important than State law
Yeah, all except those verses where they are commanded to obey human government, which they were failing to do prior to Wisconsin v. Yoder. I have more instances of Amish rebellion.
Ever heard of the Amish man Valentine Blyer? It was determined, in 1959, Valentine Blyer owed the IRS taxes. Blyer refused to pay and then subsequently ignored a court order for him to appear at a hearing. The Amish community then began supporting Blyer, and his refusal to comply with federal law to pay a tax. Rather than take the approach of telling the man this is the law of the land, and the Bible commands us to obey these laws, and so the proper route is to pay your tax and contest this in court, Blyer and the Amish community convened to advocate for his disobedience.
Yeah, this notion of the Amish as law abiding beacons of light is not an accurate portrayal. This digression aside, however, I focus now on the parts of your post germane to the dialogue.
quote:
Are you sure they don't get marriage liscences? Or that it doesn't vary by group? I have long-term friendships with some in various groups and though I've seen tracts and teachings about all sorts of stuff, I've never seen anything opposed to getting a legally recognized marriage
It varies by group. However, those groups not obtaining marriage licenses are, according to the reasoning of some, fornicating sinners.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/30/2009 9:34:46 AM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
Is there anything wrong with that? They're obeying the law of the land even though they consider God's law *more* binding.
According to the reasoning of some here, yes there is a problem in those states where a marriage license/marriage certificate is required to be filed with the proper state authority for official state recognition of the marriage under state law. They contend no marriage exists in God's view unless the state officially recognizes the marriage under state law, and in some states for this to occur the marriage license/marriage certificate must be filed away with the proper state authorities.
< Message edited by NotreDame -- 6/30/2009 10:16:54 AM >
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/30/2009 9:49:05 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 6721
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
Well I guess I have about spoke my piece on this thread; bottom line.
Scripture says to obey the law, unless it is contraditory to God's law, in our State the law is that without a license me cannot get married or is not married.
So I will not marry someone witout them having a licence, and if someone come to my Church living together as man and wife without being legally married; I will tell them they are not welcome until they are legally married.
Shacking up is a sin, and sin cannot be allowed to stand in the Church.
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/30/2009 10:14:59 AM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Qtman
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
Is there anything wrong with that? They're obeying the law of the land even though they consider God's law *more* binding.
Not that I an see. 
I was just answering the question about them getting a marriage license.
BTW here in Alabama they are not required to get the license. However, it is still not an undocumented marriage. The state requires them to ge married according to the rules of their church and/or society and it requires that the keeper of the minutes of said church or society record the proceedings in the book of minutes of the church. Therefore it is documented. And for the record it is also State recognized.
Are you sure my friend? I am not doubting you, but under the Alabama marriage code, I cannot find any exception for the Amish to get a marriage license. Maybe you know of some part of the code I do not? Let me post you what I have found and perhaps you can point me in the right direction.
Section 30-1-7
Persons authorized to solemnize marriages.
(a) Generally. Marriages may be solemnized by any licensed minister of the gospel in regular communion with the Christian church or society of which the minister is a member; by an active or retired judge of the Supreme Court, Court of Criminal Appeals, Court of Civil Appeals, any circuit court, or any district court within this state; by a judge of any federal court; or by an active or retired judge of probate.
(b) Pastor of religious society; clerk of society to maintain register of marriages; register, etc., deemed presumptive evidence of fact. Marriage may also be solemnized by the pastor of any religious society according to the rules ordained or custom established by such society. The clerk or keeper of the minutes of each society shall keep a register and enter therein a particular account of all marriages solemnized by the society, which register, or a sworn copy thereof, is presumptive evidence of the fact.
(c) Quakers, Mennonites, or other religious societies. The people called Mennonites, Quakers, or any other Christian society having similar rules or regulations, may solemnize marriage according to their forms by consent of the parties, published and declared before the congregation assembled for public worship.
Okay, these provisions here simply tell us who may solemnize a marriage under Alabama law. I find it interesting, however, those religious societies whose rules and regulations are similar is authorized to solemnize, leaving out all of those religious societies which are not.
Section 30-1-9
Marriage not to be solemnized without license; issuance, effect and duration of license; solemnization of marriage when license void.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license. Marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties. The license is an authority to anyone qualified to solemnize marriage to join together in matrimony the persons therein named. Any license issued under the provisions of this section shall be invalid if the marriage for which it was issued has not been solemnized within 30 days from the date of issuance. No person now or hereafter authorized by law to solemnize marriages shall perform any ceremony or solemnize any marriage if the license issued for such marriage has become invalid. Said license shall have stamped or printed upon it the words: "This license is void after 30 days from date unless the marriage is solemnized within said time."
Now, there may be some other provision which allows for an exemption, but this section does not accommodate any religious society with an exemption to the requirement of a marriage license before solemnization.
Section 30-1-14
Failure of minister, etc., to return marriage certificate to probate judge.
Any judge, minister of the gospel or other person uniting persons in matrimony or any clerk or keeper of the minutes of a religious society celebrating marriage by the consent of the parties before the congregation, who fails to return a certificate thereof to the judge of probate, as required by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Okay, so if a marriage license is not required, then a marriage certificate is required to be issued to the judge of probate. So, we can view the marriage certificate as a form of marriage license. Although this provision does not specifically state religious societies are exempt from the marriage license provision I cited, reading the provisions together, I think a rational reading of the plain language shows a marriage license is not required of these religious socities, but a registered marriage certificate is required in its place.
Now, interesting enough, Alabama treats marriage as a contract between a man and woman. Here are the provisions.
Section 30-1-19
Marriage, recognition thereof, between persons of the same sex prohibited.
(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Alabama Marriage Protection Act."
(b) Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman. As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting the unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children. A marriage contracted between individuals of the same sex is invalid in this state.
(c) Marriage is a sacred covenant, solemnized between a man and a woman, which, when the legal capacity and consent of both parties is present, establishes their relationship as husband and wife, and which is recognized by the state as a civil contract.
(d) No marriage license shall be issued in the State of Alabama to parties of the same sex.
(e) The State of Alabama shall not recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex that occurred or was alleged to have occurred as a result of the law of any jurisdiction regardless of whether a marriage license was issued.
These provisions, to an extent, reinforce what I have been stating all along. States, such as Alabama, are asserting for a marriage contract to be recognized under state law, then X, Y, and Z must be followed. Alabama is recognizing marriage is a contract between people, as other states likely do, and is deciding under what circumstances the state will legally acknowledge the contract and honor it. Hence, as I have been stating all along, a distinction must be made, I think, between state acknowledgment of marriage and the spiritual or Godly concept of marriage.
We could have a marriage contract in which, although the state refuses to acknowledge such a contract under state law, may nevertheless be a marriage in God's view. All I have been contending is the lack of state recognition of a marriage contract under state law does not equate to God refusing to acknowledge a marriage, as RC James and others are contending. (I am not suggesting this is your view, just explaining myself here.)
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Undocumented marriage - 6/30/2009 10:30:47 AM
|
|
|
PinkCarnations
Posts: 10801
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dbark
Marriage certificates are nothing but paper.
Well a driver's license, birth certificate, death certificate, Social Security Card, pink slip for a vehicle, mortgage on a house are all just paper too.
_____________________________
Thank you Veterans.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/30/2009 10:33:04 AM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rcjames
Well I guess I have about spoke my piece on this thread; bottom line.
Scripture says to obey the law, unless it is contraditory to God's law, in our State the law is that without a license me cannot get married or is not married.
So I will not marry someone witout them having a licence, and if someone come to my Church living together as man and wife without being legally married; I will tell them they are not welcome until they are legally married.
Shacking up is a sin, and sin cannot be allowed to stand in the Church.
Thanks
RC
quote:
or is not married.
This is not what your state laws say. Rather, the laws assert the contract of marriage is not recognized by state law and under state law, a contract for marriage not recognized by state law is not a marriage for the purposes of the law. However, this is not the same as asserting no marriage exists or they are not married from God's perspective. God's concept of marriage, and who is and is not married, is not absolutely predicated upon human law.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/30/2009 11:24:45 AM
|
|
|
Bro_Shane
Posts: 1614
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: deliveredarling
Pardon me for not reading all 6 pages of responses I looked up the word marriage in Greek and Hebrew. It was defined as conjugal rights and cohabitation. Now, my question here is, if it's not laid out in scripture as being a ceremony (if it is, please post reference ), why would it be fornication. I recently visited Brazil and many there do not go through formal marriage ceremonies.
I wonder if what we are basing the premise that it is wrong, is because somewhere in our past upbringings, someone decide it needed to be "official". So that is how we do things now. As I understand it, marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Adam and Eve did not have a ceremony, but they did celebrate conjugal rights.....
Very interesting question!
Look at the first marriage: woman presented to man in the sight of God, vows were made, they were together until death.
The definition used for marriage in Strongs is to be understood within the context of the scriptures from which it is read, which is why the definition is given the way it is.
_____________________________
<---- Respect the turtle neck
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/30/2009 12:12:58 PM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 566
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bro_Shane
quote:
ORIGINAL: deliveredarling
Pardon me for not reading all 6 pages of responses I looked up the word marriage in Greek and Hebrew. It was defined as conjugal rights and cohabitation. Now, my question here is, if it's not laid out in scripture as being a ceremony (if it is, please post reference ), why would it be fornication. I recently visited Brazil and many there do not go through formal marriage ceremonies.
I wonder if what we are basing the premise that it is wrong, is because somewhere in our past upbringings, someone decide it needed to be "official". So that is how we do things now. As I understand it, marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Adam and Eve did not have a ceremony, but they did celebrate conjugal rights.....
Very interesting question!
Look at the first marriage: woman presented to man in the sight of God, vows were made, they were together until death.
The definition used for marriage in Strongs is to be understood within the context of the scriptures from which it is read, which is why the definition is given the way it is.
I like this approach and I took a similar one in a prior post.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Undocumented marriage - 6/30/2009 3:10:23 PM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 3277
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is not what your state laws say. Rather, the laws assert the contract of marriage is not recognized by state law and under state law, a contract for marriage not recognized by state law is not a marriage for the purposes of the law. However, this is not the same as asserting no marriage exists or they are not married from God's perspective. God's concept of marriage, and who is and is not married, is not absolutely predicated upon human law.
I understand what you are saying. You are saying that a marriage can be solemnized and recognized by a group or community without a state issued marriage license. The license is required for legal state recognition of the marital union. It is conceivable that God would still recognize such a marriage. My issue however is that a marriage is not a marriage if it is void of all the legal rights of marriage when those rights are easily obtainable. I consider any vows to love, honor and cherish to be null and void when the parties making those vows refuse to pay a nominal amount of time and money to grant the legal rights of marriage to their supposed spouse.
_____________________________
This is what the Lord says: “Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old, godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls. But you reply, ‘No, that’s not the road we want!’ Jer 6:16
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
