Implications of Common Law Marriage

[Marcia]

Again, my answer to you is...it's not about you.

It's not about whether you see any good reason not be be married "by the state", since you obviously have no problem with it.

It's about other Christians, genuine Christians, that are following God's Word (and you have not shown they are not following God's Word). They do object, and they base that objection on scripture.

There is no good reason to accuse these Christians needing a "license for s*x, and of "living in sin" and of having "bastard children", as some are proclaiming.

You, and others, are having an emotional reaction to the rejection of a cultural tradition that cannot be shown by scripture to be more valid than common law marriage.

Apparently, it really bothers you that there is more scripture support for common law marriage than there is for your accepted cultural tradition.

Were not the couples in the Bible following cultural traditions for marriage as well?

 

[canadyjd]

Were not the couples in the Bible following cultural traditions for marriage as well?

I'm sure they did. Apparently, at some point, somebody said....

"Hey, let's have a celebration that our son (or daughter) is finally moving out of the tent.....errr....I mean....is getting married"

They slaughtered a goat and invited the neighbors to prove the good news.

God added a few guidelines when He gave the law....Don't marry your sister or cousin (near relative), and so on....

Moses allowed divorce, but Jesus tells us it was not that way in the beginning. This demonstrates man's culture and tradition were violating God's intentions for marriage.

Jesus tells us that "what God has joined together, let no man tear asunder".

This tells us that marriage remains under God's authority, not man's.

The Catholic Church came along and said "nobody has a valid marriage unless it is approved by the Pope, through the priests". What better way to control your people than to force approval from a preacher of the most basic God-given institution? They claim to have power invested in them by God to proclaim a man and woman husband and wife.

The protestants kept the tradition of the Catholic Church, claiming authority not granted in scripture.

Apparently, they were concerned (like some people here) that a couple might dare to be intimate in a marriage that didn't meet their approval or without a "license" from the church or state.

peace to youraying:

 

[Marcia]

I'm sure they did.

So if they followed cultural traditions then, then why is wrong to do that today? Doesn't God want Christians to be seen as married in the eyes of the law? Otherwise, it appears to be merely living together.

 

[Aaron]

My state does not have common law marriage, even if you were considered married by common law in another state you would not be here.

Where do you live? There is no state in this union where that is true.

 

[Aaron]

When was the first marriage license issued in the United States, and for what purpose?

 

[annsni]

I also posted asking why a Christian wouldn't want to be married in a church so I agree with your perspective. I found out, however, that a common law marriage is not dependent on a couple living together for a certain period of time say 7 years. It's dependent on their declaration to everyone that they consider themselves to be married and living together as husband and wife. This is even recognized by the IRS! I also found out that it's harder to get out of a common law marriage than it is to get a divorce.

Do they live apart, then declare to everyone that they are husband and wife (which they are not legally or otherwise until they have followed the law) and THEN live together - or do they live together THEN declare they are married? If it's the first, then that's lying, if it's the second, it's fornication. Neither way is the Biblical way.

My guess is that someone on this thread either is in a common law marriage or has a close friend or relative that is in one and they are trying to justify the practice. Maybe that's obvious.

I agree with you here.

 

[annsni]

Again, my answer to you is...it's not about you.

That's right. It's about God's Word, God's law.

It's not about whether you see any good reason not be be married "by the state", since you obviously have no problem with it.

It's about other Christians, genuine Christians, that are following God's Word (and you have not shown they are not following God's Word). They do object, and they base that objection on scripture.

What is their objection that is based on Scripture? THAT is what I'm asking. I've mentioned on scenerio that one family states as their reason for not having a state sanctioned marriage (that if they marry, they will be on par with the "perverts" who will have the ability to have state recognized marriages - yet by NOT having state marriages, they are.....on par with the "perverts" who do not have state marriages so their argument is invalid), and I'm asking for why this particular couple feel that it's Biblically WRONG to have a state marriage. Not why they want to have a non-state marriage but why it's BIBLICALLY WRONG to have a state marriage.

There is no good reason to accuse these Christians needing a "license for s*x, and of "living in sin" and of having "bastard children", as some are proclaiming.

You, and others, are having an emotional reaction to the rejection of a cultural tradition that cannot be shown by scripture to be more valid than common law marriage.

Apparently, it really bothers you that there is more scripture support for common law marriage than there is for your accepted cultural tradition.

That's must be why you come across as being very angry and defensive.

peace to youraying:

LOL - Oh there is NO Scriptural support for common law marriage in any of my study of Scripture. Each culture has a recognized method of getting married and ancient Israel was certainly one of them. They didn't just walk up to someone on the street, say "let's be husband and wife" and walk off and now be married. There is no Biblical or historical support for that.

I'm not defensive other than when someone says that a state marriage is Biblically wrong which this "hypothetical couple" have decided. I'm honestly wondering if this is truly "hypothetical" since it seems your argument is very consistent. Is this "hypothetical couple" you?

 

[annsni]

What I find interesting and germaine to this discussion is how Isaac Married Rebekah :

62 Now Isaac had come from Beer Lahai Roi, for he was living in the Negev. 63 He went out to the field one evening to meditate, [h] and as he looked up, he saw camels approaching. 64 Rebekah also looked up and saw Isaac. She got down from her camel 65 and asked the servant, "Who is that man in the field coming to meet us?"
"He is my master," the servant answered. So she took her veil and covered herself.

66 Then the servant told Isaac all he had done. 67 Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

Hmmm no ceremony. Just kinda straight to the point.

Also anyone else think tha Isaac was a bit of a Moma's boy? After all he whined about dieing long before he actually did.

Umm - it says that Isaac "married" her. He didn't just bring her to Mom's tent and sleep with her. It states very clearly in black and white that he "married her".

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Umm - it says that Isaac "married" her. He didn't just bring her to Mom's tent and sleep with her. It states very clearly in black and white that he "married her".

First of all you don't know the context of the statement. Because of our modern conotations you believe there was a ceremony. However, it may be as simple as taking her in the tent and sleeping with her which it seems this may have happened.

 

[annsni]

First of all you don't know the context of the statement. Because of our modern conotations you believe there was a ceremony. However, it may be as simple as taking her in the tent and sleeping with her which it seems this may have happened.

The fact that it said "married her" means that something culturally acceptable happened. We know that the law was in place and that betrothal was the accepted norm in marriage. Deuteronomy 22 gives us a view of what goes on with marriage - that it was an organized issue and not one of just deciding to take someone and that's it. There were parents involved, a commitment of some sort (a betrothal) and historically, we know there was a marriage covenant that was entered into by both parties. It was a culturally accepted norm.

What is the culturally accepted norm for today of marriage? "I'm married" tells a story - that there was a wedding of some sort. Ask anyone on the street "Are you married?" and they can tell you of their ceremony whether it's a big NY shindig that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or a small ceremony with a justice of the peace. But it's something other than just deciding "Let's tell everyone we're husband and wife".

Interestingly enough, marriage is used as a symbol of the relationship between the church and Jesus - and it is not just a verbal thing telling people that we've entered into a relationship but that there's a legal bond there. Legal.

We also see in Romans 7 that the law is involved in marriage. If this is speaking of the Jewish law that was given to Moses, then it is still their civil law. If it is the law of the government, it is the law that is binding.

Marriage was not just a taking of a woman and sleeping with her. Ever. God gave Eve to Adam formally. That was the first wedding.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

But to have that "common law marriage", does not one have to enter into sin to do it? In other words, live together as husband and wife before their relationship is confirmed?

No. Cohabitation is evidence of the existence of a marriage, but by declaring themselves married, they are. You can even have a ceremony with no celebrant or official if you like. Or have a friend marry you. It's all legal. It is also recognized as marriage if the couple moves to a state where CL Marriage is not recognized when occuring there. This is as legal as any other marriage.

The people must be free to marry (not married to someone else), but they can say "hey, we are married" and then move in together like any other couple.

 

[Marcia]

No. Cohabitation is evidence of the existence of a marriage, but by declaring themselves married, they are. You can even have a ceremony with no celebrant or official if you like. Or have a friend marry you. It's all legal. It is also recognized as marriage if the couple moves to a state where CL Marriage is not recognized when occuring there.

At least twice info has been posted showing this is not true. The couple must live together for a time, usually at least a year, before common law marriage is a possibility (note "possibility"). And only about 11 states allow this now.

There were Jewish ceremonies and contracts for marriage. We see contract in the betrothal in Jesus' day, and the bridegroom coming to get the bride. People did not just start living together.

The marriage consists of two parts. First, the betrothal - Erusin or Kidushin. Then about one or two years later, the second part took place. This is the wedding ceremony called, Nisuin or Huppah.
The betrothal is a parallel to the engagement in most ways except that in the ancient Jewish custom, it was binding! It was so binding that it could not be broken without a orthodox divorce. You were considered bound together from the period you entered the betrothal contract until the wedding day.

http://www.mayimhayim.org/JewishWedding.htm

When a Jewish young man wished to marry a particular young woman, it was customary for the prospective groom's father first to approach the girl's father with the proposal of marriage. The two men would discuss this possible union including the price offered by the groom for the bride. If the girl's father agreed to the suggested amount, the two men sealed the agreement with a toast of wine.

The potential bride then entered the room whereupon the prospective groom proclaimed his love and asked her to be his bride. If the young woman wished to be his wife, she accepted his proposal at this time. The validation of the agreement made by the engaged couple was the presentation of a gift by the groom. He offered it in the presence of at least two witnesses. As he gave the gift, usually a ring, he said to his intended bride, "Behold you are consecrated unto me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel."

Arrangements were also made right then concerning the terms of the marriage. A written contract listed the time, place, and size of the wedding as well as recording the dowry and terms of maintenance of the marriage. This binding document called a "ketubah" was kept in the bride's possession until the consummation of the marriage.

Finally, this first part of a two-part ceremony was concluded by the toast of a glass of wine. The whole ceremony was called the "Shiddukhin," or engagement. <more>​

http://www.oasistradepost.com/Weddings_/weddings_.html
Living together is not marriage, not then and not now.

 

[canadyjd]

The fact that it said "married her" means that something culturally acceptable happened. We know that the law was in place and that betrothal was the accepted norm in marriage.

Actually, I think Isaac came about 500 years before the Law of Moses.

Marriage was not just a taking of a woman and sleeping with her. Ever. God gave Eve to Adam formally. That was the first wedding.

And God didn't give them a piece of paper and say, "Now it's official. You have a license to be intimate, be fruitful and multiple"

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

What is their objection that is based on Scripture? THAT is what I'm asking.

I've already told you several times. The hypothetical couple believes state validated marrigage has become so corrupt that to participate would be an affront to God. Specifically, they see as corrupt....

1. Anyone can get married. They believe scripture forbids Christians from marrying non-Christians. To participate in an institution that allows something forbidden by scripture lends support to sin.

2. Divorce is rampant and is sin against God. To participate in an institution that allows divorce lends support to sin.

3. The state has authority over the validity of the marriage. They believe that authority rests only with God. To put youself, voluntarily under the authority of man in an area that God has specifically called His own is to be in rebellion against God and is sin.

Can you show them from scripture where they are wrong?

I'm honestly wondering if this is truly "hypothetical" since it seems your argument is very consistent. Is this "hypothetical couple" you?

I'm not going to say yea or nea.

The only reason to ask for personal information is because you want to use personal attacks instead of making your arguments from scripture. I"d rather leave personal information out of the conversation and just argue the case based on the merits.

peace to youraying:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

At least twice info has been posted showing this is not true. The couple must live together for a time, usually at least a year, before common law marriage is a possibility (note "possibility").

Incorrect. There is no minimum time specified in Colorado law.

From HERE

Factors for Determining Colorado Common Law Marriage

Though living together (cohabitation) is required, no specific duration is necessary. This means that a couple which is clearly girlfriend/boyfriend could live together for 20 years without creating a common law marriage in Colorado.

 

[annsni]

I've already told you several times. The hypothetical couple believes state validated marrigage has become so corrupt that to participate would be an affront to God. Specifically, they see as corrupt....

1. Anyone can get married. They believe scripture forbids Christians from marrying non-Christians. To participate in an institution that allows something forbidden by scripture lends support to sin.

Anyone can have a common-law marriage too - so that argument is null.

2. Divorce is rampant and is sin against God. To participate in an institution that allows divorce lends support to sin.

Does this mean that common law "marriages" don't divorce or separate? If they can, then this is also a null argument.

3. The state has authority over the validity of the marriage. They believe that authority rests only with God. To put youself, voluntarily under the authority of man in an area that God has specifically called His own is to be in rebellion against God and is sin.

Then move to a deserted island with no country sovereign over it. Scripture is clear that we ARE under the authority of our government. To not be obedient to that government, when it does not go against a specific command of God, is to be in rebellion and sin. That is beyond clear in Scripture.

Can you show them from scripture where they are wrong?I'm not going to say yea or nea.

The only reason to ask for personal information is because you want to use personal attacks instead of making your arguments from scripture. I"d rather leave personal information out of the conversation and just argue the case based on the merits.

peace to youraying:

Many of us have already shown from Scripture where they are wrong. Unfortunately, they apparently do not accept the clear teaching of Scripture to be in obedience to the government that is over us (that is instituted by God) and instead go by their own wishes. I think that is a very dangerous place to be.

 

[annsni]

Incorrect. There is no minimum time specified in Colorado law.

From HERE

Factors for Determining Colorado Common Law Marriage

Though living together (cohabitation) is required, no specific duration is necessary. This means that a couple which is clearly girlfriend/boyfriend could live together for 20 years without creating a common law marriage in Colorado.

If this is true, it's just 2% of the country - and not the norm in the other 98% of the states.

 

[canadyjd]

Scripture is clear that we ARE under the authority of our government. To not be obedient to that government, when it does not go against a specific command of God, is to be in rebellion and sin. That is beyond clear in Scripture....

It is clear from scripture we are not to be in rebellion against the government.

What you have not shown is exactly how they are in rebellion against the government.

Fact #1: The "government" does not forbid a couple from making vows before God, informing their family and friends, and calling themselves "married". Please show me any state law where such action is illegal?

Fact #2: Many states specifically allow just such actions to be taken and recognize it as valid marriage.

Fact #3: Since it is allowed by law, the claim that it is rebellion against the government, and a violation of Roms. 13, is demonstratably false.

Fact #4: To continue to use the same argument, when it has been repeatedly shown to be false, demonstrates your unwillingness to accept the truth.

peace to youraying:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

If this is true, it's just 2% of the country - and not the norm in the other 98% of the states.

Nope. I see nothing about a minimum cohabitation period in any state where it is legal. Also, look at Kansas and particularly South Carolina below. There is nothing magic about a ceremonial marriage vs. common law, where the law permits such.

STATE-BY-STATE REQUIREMENTS TO FORM A COMMON LAW MARRIAGE:*
Alabama: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity; (2) an agreement to be husband and wife; and (3) consummation of the marital relationship.
Colorado: A common-law marriage may be established by proving cohabitation and a reputation of being married.
Iowa: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declarations that the parties are husband and wife.
Kansas: For a man and woman to form a common-law marriage, they must: (1) have the mental capacity to marry; (2) agree to be married at the present time; and (3) represent to the public that they are married.
Montana: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) capacity to consent to the marriage; (2) an agreement to be married; (3) cohabitation; and (4) a reputation of being married.
Oklahoma: To establish a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be competent; (2) agree to enter into a marriage relationship; and (3) cohabit.
Pennsylvania: A common-law marriage was established if, before 1/1/2005, a man and woman exchanged words that indicated that they intended to be married at the present time and they also held themselves out to the community as married (introducing eachother as husband and wife, filing joint taxes, etc.).
Rhode Island: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) serious intent to be married and (2) conduct that leads to a reasonable belief in the community that the man and woman are married.
South Carolina: A common-law marriage is established if a man and woman intend for others to believe they are married.
Texas: A man and woman who want to establish a common-law marriage must sign a form provided by the county clerk. In addition, they must (1) agree to be married, (2) cohabit, and (3) represent to others that they are married.
Utah: For a common-law marriage, a man and woman must (1) be capable of giving consent and getting married; (2) cohabit; and (3) have a reputation of being husband and wife.
Washington, D.C.: The requirements for a common-law marriage are: (1) an express, present intent to D.C. be married and (2) cohabitation.

 

[LadyEagle]

"Common law marriage" is just a way to soothe a guilty conscience for living in sin. Jesus had something to say about it to the woman at the well, that even the man she was living with she wasn't married to. It seems pretty clear from that passage that to be "married" requires more than just living together.