Thinkingstuff said:
Many have already shown this to you, my efforts would be wasted. Kinda reminds me of Mt 7:6. My prayers are with you.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Implications of Common Law Marriage
- Thread starter Victorious
- Start date
Many have already shown this to you, my efforts would be wasted. Kinda reminds me of Mt 7:6. My prayers are with you.
Magnetic Poles
New Member
COMMON LAW - That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c070.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Magnetic Poles
New Member
Absolutely correct.
Which then begs the question - why not just have a typical, traditional wedding with a pastor in a church?
The argument against getting married in the original discussion is that "state marriage is an affront to God". I'd love to see the proof of that.
Additionally, if you're going to end up being legally married AFTER you are living together, isn't that sinning to get what you can get without sinning? In all but 2 states, cohabitation is a requirement to common law marriage. Is that the way God wants us to approach marriage?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
No need to be insulting. Thank you.
You think that common law marriage is simple cohabitation. That is as far from the truth as the east is from the west.
Common law does not require the consent of a corporation, i.e. the State, for it's force. Look back at the definition of Common Law. A man and woman who are married at common law are married the moment they say "I do." The point at which a corporation will recognize a marriage it didn't sanction by contract is irrelevant. Common law derives it's force from nature and nature's God, not from the state.
Common law is law.
This is incorrect from my understanding. There are requirements for being able to state that you are married by common law and one of them is cohabitation in all but 2 of the states that recognize common law (realize that not all 50 states recognize common law marriage). Common law has nothing to do with saying "I do" because there are no vows to say "I do" to.
The fact is that common law IS the law and as such, is a state sanctioned marriage.
The argument against state sanctioned marriage is that it is an affront to God.
I asked where ANY state marriage is an affront to God because I have not seen that in Scripture anywhere.
THAT is my argument.
JustChristian
New Member
Common law marriages don't require that anyone say "I do."
Again, you aren't making the distinction between real law (common law) and statutory law. Common law is not defined by, neither does it derive it's force from, statute or any act of any legislative body. It is self-existing law.
Until you understand that, you will not understand common law marriage.
Many feel (for no light or transient reason) that the state being a third party in the marriage contract is a corruption of the union.
Please don't argue that the marriage license doesn't make the state a third party in the marriage union. Almost any probate judge or lawyer will tell you that this is so.
Please explain this. For a government to recognize a marriage, it must be done according to the law. Both state marriage and civil marriages are done by the law. Are there recognized marriages that are different?
That makes no sense to me since God tells us to obey our laws and authorities. I'd say that God's direct command is greater than a philosophical difference.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
But Ann, you are presuming that a common law marriage is somehow illegal. There is no place in the US in which this is the case.
The government has simply put into place a few rules on how to have your marriage recognized by the state for purposes of taxes and divorce. It doesn't really care if you don't want your marriage recognized. No one will come to the door and say "you must stop telling people that you are married because the state of Alabama didn't give you a liscense". There is no penalty for not having your marriage recorded at the courthouse.
How can you then continue to argue that not having a state recognized marriage is somehow disobedience to our laws and authorities?
I'm not saying common law is illegal - except in the states that do not allow for common law marriage.
Since the definition of marriage from the Webster dictionary states "The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony." and the 1828 Webster states "The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.", how can we say that marriage is something other than a legal contract? Yeah, I can move in with someone and say we're married but in reality, to the government we are not. We cannot be responsible for each other medically, we cannot get death benefits, we cannot file jointly for income tax purposes, we cannot get any marriage exclusive benefits from the government. So with taking that into consideration, is it really a marriage just because we say so?
Please stop equating cohabitation with fornication.
When a court, in determining whether a marriage indeed exists, inquires about cohabitation, it is inquiring whether the couple has lived together as husband and wife.
Living together as husband and wife is not fornication.
When a court, in determining whether a marriage indeed exists, inquires about cohabitation, it is inquiring whether the couple has lived together as husband and wife.
Living together as husband and wife is not fornication.
Living together as husband and wife means that there is a physical relationship.
When there is a physical relationship without marriage, it is fornication.
Are you implying that the husband and wife are not truly married unless and until a judge says so?
When the fact of their marriage happens to arise in a court action, the judge ackowledges their marriage. He does not say, "as of today you are married"; he decides that they have been married all along.
I've tried. Until you can see the difference between Common Law and statutory law, there's no real point to continue.
JustChristian
New Member
This has already been answered. Why do you keep asking it?
JustChristian
New Member
It isn't is you are married.