Implications of Common Law Marriage

[Victorious]

This hypothetical couple searched the scriptures for the biblical standard. They are convinced the culture has so corrupted the institution of marriage that to participate would be to legitimize an injustice against the institution of marriage given by Almighty God. They believe their conscience bears witness they are doing the right thing by not participating in the cultural destruction of biblical marriage.

Can you show them from scripture that they are in error?Not a biblical argument.More secular arguments. Where is your opinion supported in scripture?

peace to youraying:

Butting in again... Here is the scriptural backup although I doubt you will accept it:

"But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble." (1 Corinthians 8:9-13 NASB)

 

[menageriekeeper]

Nah, that ain't working today. Your particular scripture has been used to protect every manmade tradition I've heard yet including why we shouldn't dance, play with playing card or chew tobaccy! Its the fall back of those who can't defend their arguements any other way and it is irrelevant. Somehow I don't think being married by common law is going to cause anyone to worship an idol (which is the point of Paul's comments )

Let's toss another arguement into the ring for those who think one can't possibly be married less'n the gov't says so: You ever seen your great grandpappy's marriage lisence? You got any paper, not counting your great-great gramma's Bible, that even shows a record of his and your'n great gramm's marriage?

Bet you don't. Cause a hundred-fifty years ago, folks were often married without benefit of either preacher (cause there weren't enough to go around) or paper (cause the gov't didn't care!). It was plenty enough to call oneself married and not a soul questioned it. You don't believe me? Go read your history books.

See now days we have way to many people bothering about other people's business. We think we have to have this or that to substantiate our claim before God, when in reality God knows full well what our intentions were. I think He's pretty capable of handling things without our judgemental attitudes of what is or isn't correct for another person.

 

[Marcia]

This hypothetical couple searched the scriptures for the biblical standard. They are convinced the culture has so corrupted the institution of marriage that to participate would be to legitimize an injustice against the institution of marriage given by Almighty God. They believe their conscience bears witness they are doing the right thing by not participating in the cultural destruction of biblical marriage.

I would call this couple juvenile with a sense of superiority and a streak of rebellion. It's ridiculous to defy the law in order to prove they are superior to it. How old are they? 15?

Can you show them from scripture that they are in error?Not a biblical argument.More secular arguments. Where is your opinion supported in scripture?

Romans 13; Jesus paying tax; render unto Caeser what is Caesar's; and principles of scripture that we should live in humility and peace. Whatever was done in the Garden or 200 years ago or whether there is common law in Alabama or wherever else doesn't matter. If you live together in this culture without a marriage license, you are living together, not married. I find it hard to believe that someone could tell God this is really marriage.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Ah but Marcia, Caesar in my state says he doesn't care if a couple calls themselves husband and wife or if they go before the preacher or judge and have them do it. Its all the same. Husband and wife here are husband and wife no matter WHO declares it. Just the same way as God said "for this reason shall a man leave his mother and father and cling to his wife!" (Cindi paraphrase of Gen 2 or 3)

You can't argue obeying the gov't here cause that couple canadyjd is decribing IS obeying the gov't!

Now who here in this state would that couple be rebelling against? God says leave mother and father and cling so they aren't rebelling against them. We as Christian possess liberty in Christ so they aren't rebelling against the church as the church doen't rule our private lives but seeks only to guide in righteousness and must have a scriptural basis for its teachings. So who are they rebelling against?

Popular culture perhaps? Well then, the entirety of Protestant church history then is the result of rebellion. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Marcia]

Ah but Marcia, Caesar in my state says he doesn't care if a couple calls themselves husband and wife or if they go before the preacher or judge and have them do it. Its all the same. Husband and wife here are husband and wife no matter WHO declares it. Just the same way as God said "for this reason shall a man leave his mother and father and cling to his wife!" (Cindi paraphrase of Gen 2 or 3)

You can't argue obeying the gov't here cause that couple canadyjd is decribing IS obeying the gov't!

How are they obeying the gov't?

Now who here in this state would that couple be rebelling against? God says leave mother and father and cling so they aren't rebelling against them. We as Christian possess liberty in Christ so they aren't rebelling against the church as the church doen't rule our private lives but seeks only to guide in righteousness and must have a scriptural basis for its teachings. So who are they rebelling against?

Popular culture perhaps? Well then, the entirety of Protestant church history then is the result of rebellion. Where do you draw the line

They're rebellious and prideful toward how the bible tells us to live. Anyone seeing them shacking up would assume they are not married and they would not be married in the eyes of the law. Shacking up is called "living together."

Are churches going to start teaching young people that they can get married in God's eyes, outside the law, and go live together as man and wife?

 

[Victorious]

How are they obeying the gov't?



They're rebellious and prideful toward how the bible tells us to live. Anyone seeing them shacking up would assume they are not married and they would not be married in the eyes of the law. Shacking up is called "living together."

Are churches going to start teaching young people that they can get married in God's eyes, outside the law, and go live together as man and wife?

Right on :thumbs: :flower:

 

[Victorious]

Nah, that ain't working today. Your particular scripture has been used to protect every manmade tradition I've heard yet including why we shouldn't dance, play with playing card or chew tobaccy! Its the fall back of those who can't defend their arguements any other way and it is irrelevant. Somehow I don't think being married by common law is going to cause anyone to worship an idol (which is the point of Paul's comments )

Let's toss another arguement into the ring for those who think one can't possibly be married less'n the gov't says so: You ever seen your great grandpappy's marriage lisence? You got any paper, not counting your great-great gramma's Bible, that even shows a record of his and your'n great gramm's marriage?

Bet you don't. Cause a hundred-fifty years ago, folks were often married without benefit of either preacher (cause there weren't enough to go around) or paper (cause the gov't didn't care!). It was plenty enough to call oneself married and not a soul questioned it. You don't believe me? Go read your history books.

See now days we have way to many people bothering about other people's business. We think we have to have this or that to substantiate our claim before God, when in reality God knows full well what our intentions were. I think He's pretty capable of handling things without our judgemental attitudes of what is or isn't correct for another person.

Sorry, but I knew it wouldn't work for you. That's okay. For those who understand it, it "works" pretty well.:saint:

 

[menageriekeeper]

Some Christian churches already are teaching that it is okay to marry without state recognition:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/a..._wife,_and_the_government:_defining_marriage/
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/Marriage/marriage_license.htm

I found this little table describing each states marriage laws:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

This quote/link tells the tale of why our gov't began laws to control marriage:

For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.

Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose parents opposed their match.

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.

By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.

In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html

Not a pretty sight is it, yet we WANT our gov't to have its hand in saying who is married and who is not? As in all things, gov't intervention in a basic human right is likely to simply cause confusion.

 

[canadyjd]

Butting in again... Here is the scriptural backup although I doubt you will accept it:

"But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble." (1 Corinthians 8:9-13 NASB)

You're right, I think you're misunderstaning the intent of the passage.

I don't see anything in this passage about getting married in a church, or in front of a preacher, or anything else about marriage.

What I see is you saying that other Christians might get offended if we don't follow tradition instead of following scripture. Some people prefer to follow scripture instead of tradition.

We should never violate our conscience for the sake of conformity.

BTW, it's ok to "butt in". The water is fine, jump on in.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

I would call this couple juvenile with a sense of superiority and a streak of rebellion. It's ridiculous to defy the law in order to prove they are superior to it. How old are they? 15?

So you would respond by calling them names and attempting to demean them for following their conscience and the example of scripture, but cannot show them from scripture why they are wrong?

I don't recall saying my hypothetical couple thought they were superior to the law. I said they searched the scriptures deligently. I said they were committed to following the bible, not tradition.

Romans 13;

Context: Don't rebel against the government because of taxes.

Jesus paying tax; render unto Caeser what is Caesar's;

Context: Pay your taxes. Money has the image of Caesar, people have the image of God. (BTW: marriage is an institution that originated with God, not Caesar)

and principles of scripture that we should live in humility and peace.

Context: As long as it is possible. As long as it doesn't violate scripture or your conscience.

Whatever was done in the Garden or 200 years ago or whether there is common law in Alabama or wherever else doesn't matter.

You have just equated the scriptural account of God establishing marriage with secular and cultural traditions....and dismissed scripture as something that "doesn't matter".

The homosexual lobby uses the same argument for same s*x marriage that you just made for following tradition. I hope that makes you think a little deeper about what you are saying.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

How are they obeying the gov't?

They're rebellious and prideful toward how the bible tells us to live.

And yet, you can't show scripture in context to demonstrate why they are wrong.

Anyone seeing them shacking up would assume they are not married and they would not be married in the eyes of the law. Shacking up is called "living together."

Do you ask every married couple you know to produce a marriage license before you acknowledge they are married, or do you just assume they are "shacking up" until they prove to you otherwise?

peace to youraying:

 

[Marcia]

So you would respond by calling them names and attempting to demean them for following their conscience and the example of scripture, but cannot show them from scripture why they are wrong?

No, I wouldn't call them names. I thought these were hypothetical people.

I don't recall saying my hypothetical couple thought they were superior to the law. I said they searched the scriptures deligently. I said they were committed to following the bible, not tradition.

Did they skip over Romans 13?

Context: Don't rebel against the government because of taxes.Context: Pay your taxes. Money has the image of Caesar, people have the image of God. (BTW: marriage is an institution that originated with God, not Caesar)

So we are to only obey the government in the matter of taxes?

The homosexual lobby uses the same argument for same s*x marriage that you just made for following tradition. I hope that makes you think a little deeper about what you are saying.

How do they do that? There is no tradition of allowing same s*x marriage.

 

[annsni]

This hypothetical couple searched the scriptures for the biblical standard. They are convinced the culture has so corrupted the institution of marriage that to participate would be to legitimize an injustice against the institution of marriage given by Almighty God. They believe their conscience bears witness they are doing the right thing by not participating in the cultural destruction of biblical marriage.

Can you show them from scripture that they are in error?Not a biblical argument.More secular arguments. Where is your opinion supported in scripture?

peace to youraying:

I know a couple who believe just this and their children are 'married' without the state's laws being followed. They've also written books and are quite popular amongst some groups. I think they're nuts on all counts - from their parenting advice, to their marriage advice, to their theology.


The fact that Jesus Christ Himself not only attended a wedding ceremony - which was a public declaration and followed the traditions of the Jewish faith of the time - but did His first miracle there shows us that there is something proper about following the law and tradition.

If a desire to be married and intercourse is enough to be "married" in the eyes of God, then why does Scripture speak of sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 7:2)? Why does it speak of marriage? Why does Scripture tell us to follow the authority that is placed above us in government?

I think an important thing to see is just WHY someone would choose to disobey the government. Is it because they are placing themselves as a higher authority? Is it because they wish to defraud the government? Is it for financial gain? THAT is what becomes very telling in this.

 

[JustChristian]

You're missing the point. They believe they are proceding in a biblical way.

If you can't persuade them with scripture, and you think to persuade them with "do what the traditions say to do"....how is that different from the Catholics?

peace to youraying:

Are you saying that this couple believes that a common law marriage is more Bible than a marriage performed in a church?

 

[canadyjd]

Did they skip over Romans 13?

No, as stated before, the hypothetical couple see government laws concerning marriage to be an affront to God, and in good conscience, cannot support them.

Are you telling them to violate their conscience?

So we are to only obey the government in the matter of taxes?

We are to obey the government in matters that do not violate our conscience and/or scripture. Don't you agree?

How do they do that? There is no tradition of allowing same s*x marriage.

Those who support homose*ual "marriages" use the same argument that you used to dismiss Gen. 2 as something that doesn't matter and doesn't apply to our current times.

peace to youraying:

 

[Marcia]

No, as stated before, the hypothetical couple see government laws concerning marriage to be an affront to God, and in good conscience, cannot support them.

Are you telling them to violate their conscience?

One's conscience is not the ultimate authority if it is not backed up by the Bible, even if one thinks they are following the Bible.

We are to obey the government in matters that do not violate our conscience and/or scripture. Don't you agree?

We are to obey the gov't unless it directs us to violate scripture. I may not like a lot of things the gov't is doing, such as waging a war, let's say, but I don't withhold taxes.
The Bible doesn't say to obey the gov't only if it does not violate your conscience. It says obey the gov't.

Those who support homose*ual "marriages" use the same argument that you used to dismiss Gen. 2 as something that doesn't matter and doesn't apply to our current times

Please explain this. There is no tradition or biblical support for homosexual marriage. And it doesn't matter what argument they use, they have nothing to back it up.

Please see Ann's post above.

 

[canadyjd]

I know a couple who believe just this and their children are 'married' without the state's laws being followed. They've also written books and are quite popular amongst some groups. I think they're nuts on all counts - from their parenting advice, to their marriage advice, to their theology.

I know of many people who follow the regular tradition of marriage in a church or at the court house. They are unfaithful to their spouses, they get divorced and remarried many times. They are horrible parents to their children and step-children.

Some have written books and they are nuts on all accounts, from their parenting advice, to the marriage advice, to their theology.....

Does that prove anything?

Neither did you.

The fact that Jesus Christ Himself not only attended a wedding ceremony - which was a public declaration and followed the traditions of the Jewish faith of the time - but did His first miracle there shows us that there is something proper about following the law and tradition.

My hypothetical couple gave a public declaration. Did those folks at the wedding Jesus attended go to the Roman government to get a license? I can't find that in scripture.

If a desire to be married and intercourse is enough to be "married" in the eyes of God, then why does Scripture speak of sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 7:2)? Why does it speak of marriage?

You are misrepresenting the case. It isn't a "desire to be married and intercourse".

It is carefully searching scripture for the biblical pattern. It is going before God to declare your vows. It is proclaiming your intentions to family and friends. It coming together, as Gen. 2 states, to start your own family.

I think an important thing to see is just WHY someone would choose to disobey the government. Is it because they are placing themselves as a higher authority? Is it because they wish to defraud the government? Is it for financial gain? THAT is what becomes very telling in this.

I already stated the motive. They believe the government has so degraded marriage as to be an affront to Almighty God...it violates their conscience to participate in it.

Can you show from scripture they are wrong?

I haven't seen anything yet that does.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

One's conscience is not the ultimate authority if it is not backed up by the Bible, even if one thinks they are following the Bible.

And yet, you make the assertion without showing scripture in context to support you claim that it is not backed up by the bible.

We are to obey the gov't unless it directs us to violate scripture.

Or to violate our conscience. As you know, some things aren't mentioned in scripture where our conscience must guide us.

The Bible doesn't say to obey the gov't only if it does not violate your conscience. It says obey the gov't.

1984 again and again.

Please explain this. There is no tradition or biblical support for homosexual marriage. And it doesn't matter what argument they use, they have nothing to back it up.

You stated that it doesn't matter what Gen. 2 says....those who support homose*ual marriage agree with you and use the same argument.

I can't state it clearer.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Are you saying that this couple believes that a common law marriage is more Bible than a marriage performed in a church?

I can show you in scripture examples of couples being married by no more than declaring their intentions and living together and raising children.

Can you show me in scripture one couple that was married in a church?

If you can't, how can you claim it is "more bible"?

peace to youraying:

 

[annsni]

No, as stated before, the hypothetical couple see government laws concerning marriage to be an affront to God, and in good conscience, cannot support them.

What would be an affront to God in having a state marriage? I don't see one bit how this can be offensive to God.