Implications of Common Law Marriage

[canadyjd]

Originally Posted by canadyjdActs 5:29 "But Peter and the apostles answered and said, 'We must obey God rather than men.'"

First of all, this had to do with preaching the gospel.

Secondly, this does not say to disobey the gov't if it violates your conscience.

Peter was being told by the religious leaders not to preach the gospel. This has nothing to do with your scenario.

Well, it did have to do with preaching the gospel, but the principle holds true. A Christian must obey God's Word when it is in conflict with "man's word".

The religious leaders were the government of the Jews. Peter was standing in the Sanhedren Council and they were passing judgment.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

If someone says that a state marriage is an affront to God and cannot prove it Scripturally, then they are wrong. Period.

And if someone says a couple is not married biblically unless they get a state license and stand in front of a preacher...and cannot prove it Scripturally, then they are wrong...Period.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove it scripturally.

If they wish to choose to not have a state marriage, that is between them and God.

Now we are getting somewhere. It is between them and God. We cannot and should not demand a standard that is not supported by scripture.

But to say that a state marriage is wrong - and affront to God - and therefore a sin, they are telling me that I sinned in marrying my husband.

You mean it hurts your feelings if someone declares your marriage and your children to be illigitimate, even when you believe you stand blameless before God? Even when you searched the scriptures and are convinced by your own conscience that you are doing the right thing?

You are so right!!

I have spoken to my hypothetical couple, and they have decided to show to you the same kind of Christian liberty that you have shown to them.

They believe Ann's marriage is a matter between her and her husband and Almighty God.

Even though they don't agree with Ann, they believe she is a genuine Christian, that she is not living in sin, that her children are ligitimate, and that she loves Jesus just as much as they do, and they expect to see her in heaven one day.:1_grouphug:

peace to youraying:

 

[John Toppass]

Getting back to the OP's situation, getting married "before God" and not the state could not be feasible no matter how you felt about this state/God issue. I do not see how God could honor any marriage that comes before him as a technicality in order to deceive the state. That would be like God approving deceit.

 

[John Toppass]

Where in the scripture does God say that children themselves are illegitimate?

 

[annsni]

And if someone says a couple is not married biblically unless they get a state license and stand in front of a preacher...and cannot prove it Scripturally, then they are wrong...Period.

It's been shown that we are to obey our governing authorities. In the majority of states, marriage is with a license and a preacher or justice of the peace. If the government tells us to have a license and someone legally allowed to marry us, and Scripture tells us to obey the governmental laws, and those laws are not against Scripture, then it is wrong to disobey the government. That is Scriptural.

Now we are getting somewhere. It is between them and God.

Just as it is between them and God if someone chooses to get drunk in their own home. Doesn't make it right.

We cannot and should not demand a standard that is not supported by scripture.

True but in this case, Scripture is clear.

You mean it hurts your feelings if someone declares your marriage and your children to be illigitimate, even when you believe you stand blameless before God?

When I know I stand blameless before God because I did not disobey Him at all. I had a legal marriage and waited to consumate that marriage until after we were legally declared married.

I have spoken to my hypothetical couple, and they have decided to show to you the same kind of Christian liberty that you have shown to them.

If there is a hypotethical couple, then you cannot speak to them. If you did speak to someone, then you are lying. Which is it? I do not care whether they show me some kind of liberty (it's not Christian if they're telling me to give them the same liberty to live in sin).

They believe Ann's marriage is a matter between her and her husband and Almighty God.

I don't care what they say. I know that my marriage is 100% legal and 100% Biblical. I followed the Scriptures in obeying the laws of the land.

Even though they don't agree with Ann, they believe she is a genuine Christian, that she is not living in sin, that her children are ligitimate, and that she loves Jesus just as much as they do, and they expect to see her in heaven one day.

Oh, I feel SO much better now that those who disobey God's Word approve of my marriage.

 

[annsni]

My question for those who feel that government marriages are a sin in God's eyes:

What makes it a sin or an affront?

I heard one family say that it was that the government will be approving of homosexual marriage and they don't want to be "in league with perverts" (pg. 3) yet by doing their own wedding without government approval, they are doing just that. It's the stupidest thinking I've heard in a long time - but then again, this family is not known for being too swift in my experience.

So what does the "hypothetical family" think? What's their reasoning?

 

[Marcia]

Well, it did have to do with preaching the gospel, but the principle holds true. A Christian must obey God's Word when it is in conflict with "man's word".

peace to youraying:

Getting a marriage license is not in conflict with God's word, and anyone who thinks so is misreading or disregarding Rom. 13, and the principles found in the NT that we are to live peaceably under our rulers.

 

[ajg1959]

This "marriage in God's eyes" thing puzzles me.

I already shared in an earlier post about my sister in law that lives with a man that is married to someone else. Their preacher pronounced them "married in God's eyes" even though he wasnt divorced from his other wife (in the state's eyes).

Anyway they lived together for almost a year and had a house together and some debts together. Today we found out that they broke up this week, and are arguing over how to divide what they have acuumulated and who will pay the debts.

They cant got to divorce court because he is still got another wife he hasnt been to divorce court with yet.

So now that they split up from their "marriage in the eyes of God", how do they divorce?

This is a real live mess that stems from a "marriage in the eyes of God".

Lets face it, he is still married to the first woman and not my sister in law...they were just shacking up.

AJ

 

[canadyjd]

It's been shown that we are to obey our governing authorities. In the majority of states, marriage is with a license and a preacher or justice of the peace. If the government tells us to have a license and someone legally allowed to marry us, and Scripture tells us to obey the governmental laws, and those laws are not against Scripture, then it is wrong to disobey the government. That is Scriptural.

The government has not made it illegal for a man and a woman to take private vows before God, proclaim these intentions to family and friends and then start a family. They are not "disobeying the government" to do so. Tell me of a state where it is illegal to call yourself "married" unless you have a license from the state.

Of course, there are legal issues that will come up with regard to how that couple is viewed by the government. The government may not recognize their marriage as valid and so they may not get the benefits of a state recognized "marriage", but they have not disobeyed anybody. They have not broken any laws.

You then have to make the assertion they have broken God's law, or God's Word, but you continually fail to show where they have broken God's Word.

Again, citing Roms. 13 doesn't meet the standard since it has been demonstrated they haven't broken any laws.

Just as it is between them and God if someone chooses to get drunk in their own home. Doesn't make it right.

But drunkenness is prohibited by scripture. You still haven't shown any scripture that demonstrates they have violated anything other than the cultural norms that you have accepted.

True but in this case, Scripture is clear.

The scripture you have given has not proven your opinion at all.

peace to youraying:

 

[ajg1959]

The government has not made it illegal for a man and a woman to take private vows before God, proclaim these intentions to family and friends and then start a family. They are not "disobeying the government" to do so. Tell me of a state where it is illegal to call yourself "married" unless you have a license from the state.

Of course, there are legal issues that will come up with regard to how that couple is viewed by the government. The government may not recognize their marriage as valid and so they may not get the benefits of a state recognized "marriage", but they have not disobeyed anybody. They have not broken any laws.

You then have to make the assertion they have broken God's law, or God's Word, but you continually fail to show where they have broken God's Word.

Again, citing Roms. 13 doesn't meet the standard since it has been demonstrated they haven't broken any laws.But drunkenness is prohibited by scripture. You still haven't shown any scripture that demonstrates they have violated anything other than the cultural norms that you have accepted.The scripture you have given has not proven your opinion at all.

peace to youraying:

Please read my post #88 above.

Anyone that just "proclaims" they are married are indeed just shacking up, and their children are illegitimate (bastards).

If a christian couple wants to be together, there is no reason whatsoever not to get legally married. When they avoid legal marriage for financial gain they are just compromising their christian morals for profit.

Shacking up creates too much confusion and disorder.

AJ

 

[annsni]

The government has not made it illegal for a man and a woman to take private vows before God, proclaim these intentions to family and friends and then start a family. They are not "disobeying the government" to do so. Tell me of a state where it is illegal to call yourself "married" unless you have a license from the state.

Of course, there are legal issues that will come up with regard to how that couple is viewed by the government. The government may not recognize their marriage as valid and so they may not get the benefits of a state recognized "marriage", but they have not disobeyed anybody. They have not broken any laws.

You then have to make the assertion they have broken God's law, or God's Word, but you continually fail to show where they have broken God's Word.

Again, citing Roms. 13 doesn't meet the standard since it has been demonstrated they haven't broken any laws.But drunkenness is prohibited by scripture. You still haven't shown any scripture that demonstrates they have violated anything other than the cultural norms that you have accepted.The scripture you have given has not proven your opinion at all.

peace to youraying:

My question is this: why would a Christian couple not wish to be married in the eyes of the state? I see no good reason not to be married by the state in a ceremony in the church by a man of God.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

My question is this: why would a Christian couple not wish to be married in the eyes of the state? I see no good reason not to be married by the state in a ceremony in the church by a man of God.

Here, and in a handful of other states, common law marriage IS legally married according to the state.

 

[annsni]

Here, and in a handful of other states, common law marriage IS legally married according to the state.

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?

 

[JustChristian]

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?

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.

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.

 

[canadyjd]

Please read my post #88 above.

Anyone that just "proclaims" they are married are indeed just shacking up, and their children are illegitimate (bastards).

And yet, I notice you have no scripture to back up your assertions.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

My question is this: why would a Christian couple not wish to be married in the eyes of the state? I see no good reason not to be married by the state in a ceremony in the church by a man of God.

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.

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

peace to youraying:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

 

[Marcia]

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.

It depends on the state; this is not true of all states that allow common law marriage. In several, you have to hold yourselves out as husband and wife for a few years before it is considered marriage.

1. Ascertain if the state/country you are living in recognizes common-law marriages. Only a few states plus the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages.Currently, common-law marriages are recognized by: Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington, D.C.

1. Generally, there are four requirements for a valid common-law marriage. Just living together isn't enough to validate a common-law marriage.
   
2. Requirement One:
   You must live together.
3. Requirement Two:
   You must present yourselves to others as a married couple. Some ways of doing this are by using the same last name, referring to one another as husband or wife, and filing a joint tax return.
4. Requirement Three:
   Although the time frame is not defined, you have to be together for a significant period of time.
5. Requirement Four:
   You must intend to be married.
6. In the U.S., the agreement by every state to recognize as valid a common-law marriage that was recognized in another state has been challenged by many states creating state laws not recognizing same sex marriages valid in other locales. It is best to consult an attorney to make sure your common-law marriage is recognized in the state where you are currently residing.

...These states have restrictions and only recognize common-law marriages performed/created by a certain date:

1. Georgia, January 1, 1997

• Idaho, January 1, 1996
• Ohio, October 10, 1991
• Oklahoma, November 1, 1998. Whether the Oklahoma law on this will be upheld is still unknown
  More on Oklahoma Common-Law Marriage.
• Pennsylvania, January 1, 2005.

1. New Hampshire only recognizes common-law marriages for probate purposes.

Source:
http://marriage.about.com/cs/commonlaw/ht/commonlaw.htm

 

[Marcia]

Common law marriage is a marriage that results from the actions of a couple, despite the fact that they have not obtained a marriage license or fulfilled the requirements of a state's statutory marriage laws. This typically means that the couple has cohabitated for a period of time, usually a year or more, while having an agreement to be married and holding themselves out to the world as husband and wife.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/family_law/common_law.html

 

[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?