Cohabitation

[Aaron]

By 'marrying' you're talking about a church wedding 'ceremony' right? In the Middle Ages there was no such thing. People just lived together and were referred to as Man and Wife. It wasn't until fairly recently (in human terms) that the actual concept of a wedding 'ceremony' for the general masses became commonplace. Yes, there was 'marriage' and people had husbands and wives and recognised the concept of family, but it was much more akin to common-law 'living in sin' marriages that we talk about today.

The marriages you're describing ARE common law marriages. A lot of people confuse common law marriage with cohabitation, but they're nothing alike. A common law marriage IS a marriage. Cohabitation is a sin.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I said that some people cannot yield to the state that which they belive God has given to them.

The issue is marriage licensing, and as of yet, there has been no biblical reasons given why it cannot be "yielded to the state" (which is a most odd way of putting it).

A license means that the act is forbidden without permission by the civil authority. The license is not merely a matter of record, it is permission granted to do something that without such permission is illegal. In other words, it is saying that no one has the natural right to marry.

No it is not saying that at all. It is saying that there are certain steps that one must take to marry ... like being single, being of certain ages, etc. Furthermore, everyone does not have the "natural right" to marry.

Again, you need to tell me what's required for a license to be granted in those countries. I don't know the statutes in Brazil or Mexico.

The statute is that a church marriage is not a valid marriage, as I understand it. If you get married, it has to be a civil ceremony.

When the civil government imposes arbitrary or anti-biblical conditions before granting permission. Forbidding to marry is a doctrine of devils.

What do you mean by arbitrary? Is a six year old is allowed to marry? Or forbidden? What about a 10 year old? Or 16 year old? Or 18 year old? or 25 year old?

If a state imposes anti-biblical conditions before giving a license, then there is a case for not having one. But I am not aware of any who do that. Are you?

Your questions don't sound like you studied the issue as much as you boast.

Your answers don't sound like you have studied it at all. Seriously, Aaron, you gotta have more than this. You managed to not answer the questions. There is not much hope for a meaningful exchange here.

 

[OldRegular]

I dont see how the question of church membership is relevent. Lets say they are non church members, or if they were church members you were not aware they were living together until they asked you to perform the wedding.

If they were members of the church of which he was pastor he should have known.

 

[gb93433]

Originally a marriage was a civil and not a religious ceremony.

 

[Jim1999]

That depends on country and religion. In some countries marriage was a religious thing, but perhaps came late in the churches........some churches.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Aaron]

The issue is marriage licensing, and as of yet, there has been no biblical reasons given why it cannot be "yielded to the state" (which is a most odd way of putting it).

I didn't say marriage licensing couldn't be yielded to the state. (You're not paying attention.) I said that some folks think that the ground they yield to the state in obtaining a license goes against their conscience. The license is a contract with the state and makes the state a third party in the marriage contract,* and this is the ground that some people in good conscience cannot yield. You can accept it or not, but don't pretend that licensing is no matter of conscience.

No it is not saying that at all.

So you're a lawyer now? Honestly this is a statement of your opinion on the nature of a license, and not of legal fact. I did a little homework for you in my response above. I won't do anymore and I'm not going to argue points that you make in ignorance beyond saying, no, you're wrong; do your homework.

It is saying that there are certain steps that one must take to marry ... like being single, being of certain ages, etc. Furthermore, everyone does not have the "natural right" to marry.

No, you're wrong; do your homework.

The statute is that a church marriage is not a valid marriage, as I understand it. If you get married, it has to be a civil ceremony.

So you don't know what the conditions are for granting permission to marry in Brazil and Mexico, but you asked me to comment on them as if I would know?

What do you mean by arbitrary?

You asked me when I thought a person would not be bound to yield to the state's prohibition of marriage. I told you.

If a state imposes anti-biblical conditions before giving a license, then there is a case for not having one.

Okay then.

But I am not aware of any who do that. Are you?

Not yet, but some people balk at the third party issue, and they make a good case for it.

Some may balk at the birth control presentations now required in Hawaii, California and Virginia, especially Catholics.

Since you are interested in my opinion of foreign marriage statutes, China's compulsory birth control is definitely an anti-biblical one. (And, please, don't attempt to counter this as something unrelated to marriage in China. It's in their conditions for allowing marriage.

Your answers don't sound like you have studied it at all. Seriously, Aaron, you gotta have more than this. You managed to not answer the questions. There is not much hope for a meaningful exchange here.

You didn't ask any meaningful questions.

* (This is the only homework I'll do for you.) http://www.summitohioprobate.com/CT_Marriage.htm

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

If they were members of the church of which he was pastor he should have known.

should have don't always cut it.

For argument sake, lets say this is a new couple to the church. A guy and his girlfriend walk the aisle and want to join the church. They are saved, both have been baptized. They are living together. They want to get married. They want to get married at your church and have you do the ceremony.

Everyone on this thread debating the authority of marriage and whether it is a state or church institution - Go get your own thread please.

 

[blackbird]

I've had too many "couples" rip me off too many times

There was a couple who came to me wanting to get married---they were "shackin'" up----and back then I didn't know no better so I agreed to marry them---the ceremony was at their house

Turns out---the bride had a handicapped son who was on disability----when she married this groom----it took a while for the thing to run through the system but---the handicapped boy stood to lose his SSI disability---as long as his momma remained single---he'd get it--but now she is "hitched" and he was gonna lose it

So---next thing I know---they are filing for divorce--the cotton pickin' judge granted the divorce---and the little fella kept receiving his SSI---and that man and woman are still living together in a sinful state of adultery/fornication!!---all of this so that the little boy wouldn't lose his SSI!!

There is not one word from one single verse in any one chapter of any one book of the Bible that says that the preacher MUST perform ceremonies---nor is there any one word . . . that says that the church MUST condone it

I've been "hoodwinked" by more bride and grooms than you can "shake a stick at"---its pitiful!!!

I had a fella pull up into the church parking lot where my wife and I were walking(for exercise)--I knew the fella--not a member of the church but who lived in the community----he says

"Preacher! Me and my girlfriend what to get married-----can you do the wedding? Its this weekend at her daddy's house!"

I said----"No, dude! I can't!"

He scratched off out of the parkin' lot madder than a wet hen----holdin' it against me cause I wouldn't marry them!!

God help us-----whats wrong with society!!

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

I've had too many "couples" rip me off too many times

How exactly did they "rip you off" blackbird?

I will agree with you that you should not be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone. Except in nations where there is an official religion and religious leaders receive tax dollars I see no way that you should be compelled to perform a wedding. That is one of my biggest objections to the gay marriage issue, I don't want to be forced into performing any ceremony I don't agree with.

But how did this couple with the disabled son or any other couple rip you off? How did they hurt you? You performed a ceremony, so what? I don't agree with them manipulating the system like that but that is what happens when you play by the government's rules. Not wanting to touch the issue of are they married in God's eyes vs the states eyes, but I still don't see how their marriage hurts you.

Do you think people will say bad things about you because you performed their wedding? I guess I could see where your reputation could be hurt.

As I mentioned earlier on this thread, when I was ordained I was warned against being a "marrying sam." But I still don't see how that hurts anyone.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Everyone on this thread debating the authority of marriage and whether it is a state or church institution - Go get your own thread please.

NCT, one of the options you gave deals directly with the issue of authority to marry. So you can't ask the question, pose some answers, and then object when someone actually interacts with your answers.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

NCT, one of the options you gave deals directly with the issue of authority to marry. So you can't ask the question, pose some answers, and then object when someone actually interacts with your answers.

OK, Larry, I guess I never considered that option 1 dealt with the authority to marry. I did not consider that the "marry them now" option violated anyone's authority. You would go back and do it with the state's blessing later.

I had left open the possibility of other options and I was actually hoping for some options I had not considered rather than questioning the validity of the options I had given the couple in question.

Whatever.

 

[jcjordan]

Having exprienced this personally, the preacher should have demanded #2 with us. God is gracious, because our marriage shouldn't have lasted a year, but God has allowed it to now flourish for 8 years come next month.

In the thread on divorce and remarry I mentioned that I did once deny a couple that asked me to perform a marriage ceremony for them. I did this not because they were divorced, I have no problem with that, but we can beat that to death on the other thread, but I refused because they were living together.

This was not a decision I took lightly, I cared deeply for the both members of the couple in question. It was a matter of much prayer and I sought the council of other men who had helped me in the past. It was also not a decision I made when they asked. It was a decision I had made years before when I set guidelines for myself and who I would or would not marry. I will marry divorced people, depending on the circumstances. I will not marry a couple that is living together.

So what do you do with a couple that is living together and wants to get married? Obviously we would rather they get married then continue living together right? But can we gloss over that sin with no repentance or acknowledgement? I can not.

I gave this couple 3 options:

Option 1: Get married right now. I mean at that moment right there in my office or wherever you are when they ask. Forget about the license and the ring and the piano music. Just exchange vows before God almighty and let me pronounce you man and wife. You’re living in sin. Let’s turn from that sin and fix it right now. Then, later we can have the big ceremony. We can get the license and you can renew your vows in front of your family and friends.

Option 2: (my preference) Separate. Move out, separate, end the sinful condition you’re living in, and then get married. Financially this can be tough but most people have friends who can put them up for a while. I asked the couple to consider it a fast of abstinence like Paul mentions in I Cor 7:5Give yourselves a season of fasting and prayer for your marriage. Acknowledge your sin before God and show him how serious you are by abstaining for a season. Ask for his blessings on your family and offer this as a sacrifice. You know there will be times in your marriage when you are apart for one reason or another. Show your spouse that you are dedicated to them by resisting this temptation for a season. Then when one is deployed or working in anther town or you are separated for any reason you will have that faith and confidence in each other that you will be faithful. If you can’t do without “it” for a couple months before the wedding why would I believe you will be faithful after?

I have used this option before with couples that were not cohabitating but that I suspected had a biblical knowledge of one another before the wedding. I never asked and told them specifically I did not want to know, that was between them and God. But I recommended that if they were involved in a sinful physical relationship they end it immediately.

Option 3: Get someone else to marry you.

The couple in question went with option 3.

So enough of my thoughts, what do you think. Preachers, if a couple living together wants you to marry them what is your answer. Are there other options I have not considered?

 

[jcjordan]

btw...I don't think #1 is a good option because it doesn't allow for dealing with the sin at hand. It makes it easy to just sweep the sin under the rug and pretend it never happened instead of bringing it into the light and calling for repentance.

 

[Jim1999]

no comment,,can't even see the wee, tiny print

 

[Silas Dresden]

What's the difference between 'common law marriage' and cohabiting (or 'shacking up')?

 

[sag38]

Not much difference.

 

[pinoybaptist]

This doesn't solve the problem though. Without the license, they are still not married. Vows are not some kind of hocus pocus you say to legitimize living together.

Typically, I say to separate. In some cases, I say I will marry you as soon as you want (given other factors like spiritual state), but the sex has to stop immediately.

Which brings to mind a question I have always toyed with, considering today's infatuation with same-sex marriages. How did marriage evolve into how we know it today ?

PL, you said without the license, they are still not married. Why ?
What makes civil papers the binding for the marriage ?
Where do we find government licensing marriages in the Bible ?

As for the OP, why, I will marry them, with or without the licenses. If they prefer to wait for the licenses, fine with me.

If they are indeed children of God, did Christ not know of this sin and this situation before ? Is this sin not covered by the blood ?

What makes this any worse than divorced individuals remarrying ?

Will God find them any more acceptable, if they "cut off" the sin right there and then, than they already are in Christ ?

 

[Pastor Larry]

PL, you said without the license, they are still not married. Why ?

Because that is what the law says, and we are to live under the law of the land.

What makes civil papers the binding for the marriage ?

The law that we are to submit ourselves to.

Where do we find government licensing marriages in the Bible ?

Nowhere that I know of. If you notice, I have never made that argument. My argument is that we are to live under the laws of the land as God commanded us to.

If they are indeed children of God, did Christ not know of this sin and this situation before ? Is this sin not covered by the blood ?

I don't think that is the issue. I am not opposed to marrying people who are living together. I have done it, and would do it again. As I tell them, one of my goals is to help you do right.

What makes this any worse than divorced individuals remarrying ?

It depends.

Will God find them any more acceptable, if they "cut off" the sin right there and then, than they already are in Christ ?

No, but he will find them more pleasing to him if they do not continue in sin.

If a commitment is all that is necessary to be married, why do they have to come to you anyway? What part of the Bible says that a marriage has to be officiated by a pastor? Or by anyone?

It doesn't that I know of. So if you are right that a marriage license is unnecessary because it isn't mentioned in the Bible, you have to admit that you as a pastor are also unnecessary because it isn't mentioned in the Bible.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

Thanks pinoy I am glad I am not completely alone on my first option.

Look I hear what many of you are saying, they living together is a sin. And like pinoy pointed out that sin is covered by the blood like all their other sins. I want them to repent and ask forgiveness and I want them to stop. I would rather they separate.

BUT, If they will not separate then I still want the sinful condition to end. In the spirit of I Cor 7:9 I think immediate marriage is an acceptable way to do that.

So some of you ask, if they don’t have a license what is the difference? Well to the state there is no difference, but then the state did not care that they were living together to start with. Actually if they never follow through with the civil marriage and divorce the state might be very interested indeed. I know in some states a clear declaration of marriage is binding for common law marriage in divorce cases.

In the eyes of God I believe there is a difference. There would be an exchange of vows, a verbal expression of their love and COMMITMENT to one another. Isn’t that the heart of marriage anyway? We don’t as clergymen join them together, God does.

I have talked to people who said there wedding vows were just empty words they recited to “get it over with.” But I don’t believe that is God’s view and it has never been my view. A vow before God is a serious and holy thing.

Let me put it to you the same way I would put it to the couple in question. Are you ready to give verbal evidence of your love? Are you ready to make a commitment to one another, right now at this very moment, to keep yourselves one for the other all the days of your life? If you are then let’s do that. If not, then move out till you are ready. If you not ready to make that commitment then you have no business entering into the physical relationship of marriage.

Hey I know many of you disagree and I honestly understand and respect your position. I still think its wrong, but I respect it and understand why you hold to it. J

 

[chuck2336]

I had a pastor that told me he doesnt refuse anyone. He felt like if he said no they would just go to the JP and he would lose an oportunity to share the word and witness to them.

Be it right or wrong there is some validity to his statment.