Laws on Marriage/Family

[TC]

From the MN Bar Association:
The circumstances under which a man and a woman may be considered married are different in each state. Unless validly married in another state, Minnesota residents must obtain a marriage license from the district court, complete the appropriate forms, and have their marriage vows solemnized by an authorized official in the presence of at least two witnesses.

And

In a common law marriage, the parties present themselves as husband and wife to everyone. By contrast, the couple who lives together disavows the husband-wife relationship, and there are ordinarily no financial obligations or rights stemming from such a relationship. In states that recognize common law marriages, maintenance (or alimony) and child support may be obtained as well as a division of property if the marriage is dissolved.

Without solemnization of a marriage by license and ceremony, a couple who cohabits will not be considered married.


So, you can see that you are not married in MN just by that fact that you decide to live together. You have to fulfill certain obligations under the law. Peter tells you to obey these types of laws.

The government quit calling abortion murder btw, so what do you call it now?

Now, you are just arguing for arguments sake. As we all know that we are not under any such obligation to obey any laws that would have us break God's law. Hence, abortion is murder and I oppose this heinous thing. But, that is a whole different subject. Please keep this on target.

 

[Pastor Larry]

1. Should a theological position mean that people who do not agree with your theological position are denied rights?

No, not in most cases that I can think of. No one here is denying the right of marriage to homosexuals. They have the same rights that everyone else does to get married. But when they get married, they need to get married, not form some non-marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman. There is no other kind of marriage. Any homosexual has the right to marry.

2. If marriage is so sacrisanct, and therefore presumably the rights and responsibilities of marriage are to be respected, how does spreading those rights and responsibilities to others (outside of the traditional understanding of marriage) weaken them?

It doesn't weaken them so much as it creates an absurdity. We can no more speak of homosexual marriage than we can of round squares, or six-sided pentagons. It is laughable on its face.

But there is a weakening of morality and virtue by tacit approval of an ungodly lifestyle. Much of what is accepted today was widely recognized as wrong behavior even twenty or thirty years ago in the mainstream. But desensitization has led to the weakening of morality and virtue.

3. Even if we could all agree that certain behaviours were 'unbiblical' how does that play with a society which does not accept those things and in fact in which we are in a minority?

I would not suggest that we not "accept" homosexual behavior. But we certainly should not condone it. IF they want to be homosexuals, then keep it in their bedroom. It is always funny how no one wants the government "in the bedroom," but they want their bedrooms out on the street. In a free society, they have the rights that the rest of us do.

The church is to be prophetic. The problems arise when the church slips into a quasi-governmental position and starts throwing its weight around.

I think the greater problem is when the church fails to preach the Bible clearly and truthfully without respect for whom it might offend. If the homosexuals are offended that homosexual marriage doesn't exist, then the problem is with them. They need to change their viewpoint. They have made choices about how they will live. They must accept the consequences that come along with those choices.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Some of the discussion over here has touched on the idea that (conservative) Christian values should or shouldn't be enshrined in law. My question is, should they?

It seems to me that there is very little logic in the position that Christian morality should become the law of this or any other land. It's certainly (and obviously) not a New Testament idea either. Why can we not have the civil law based on principles that touch only as lightly as possible on personal morality and allow Christian individuals, groups, or churches to exercise their own moral system in addition to the law, but without imposing their values on those who do not share their faith?

Why this tendency on the part of some Christians to wish to turn every country into a theocracy?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Every single law on the books in any country is an imposition of morality. Most law systems in western societies are based upon the Judeao-Christian worldview. Our law says murder is illegal because the Bible say thou shalt not commit murder. There is just no possible way to have any laws that do not impose someone's morals on somebody else. You just cannot seperate the two.

 

[Gina B]

We're back to square one again then Pastor Larry. Why do you feel you need the state to say your marriage is valid?
And...you have not shown me that the state says a marriage is invalid in the eyes of God if it is not approved by the state. You have shown me that for legal purposes such as taxes and state benefits, the law says you must be recognized by the state.
I am not attempting to change the topic or simply argue with the abortion/murder statement, but trying to make a point which says that the government should not be allowed to define what is right and wrong by changing the meaning of words. In abortion, they changed the definition of murder to not include certain methods of causing death. In marriage, they changed the term common law marriage to common relationship.
I know a couple who was married in another country, and now live in the US. The US refuses to recognize the marriage. It would be ridiculous to imply that they are fornicating by living together in the US while the government doesn't recognize their marriage, as it would be ridiculous to accuse US citizen couples who visit a country where US marriages aren't recognized of the same thing. But according to your thinking, the government didn't say they were married, so sin is being committed and the laws of God disobeyed.
Now, if you disagree with that bit of silliness, hold onto that thought and think about why you disagree that they are in sin. Hopefully you will say to yourself "they are not sinning because they made that commitment to each other and to God". Now take that thought and apply it more broadly and you'll start to understand why I resist the thought of the government telling me what God approves and disapproves. Which they do not btw. You still haven't shown me a law that says God won't recognize a marriage that the government doesn't.

Gina

 

[Pastor Larry]

Some of the discussion over here has touched on the idea that (conservative) Christian values should or shouldn't be enshrined in law. My question is, should they?

I don't think that is true. For instance, marriage between a man and woman is not just a Christian morality. Every culture in the history of man has recognized that basic fact. As TC pointed out, all laws are an imposition of morality. The fact that most agree on the laws that should be there and enforced is testimony to the truth of SCripture, specifically the image of God in man and the truth written on the hearts. Even the Gentiles who do not have the Law do by nature the things written in the Law. Basic morality is an expression of the image of God in man and it is why virtually every culture has recognized basic things about law and civil society.

 

[Matt Black]

Agreed with you up to a point, Pastor Larry. Some questions, then:-

1. In a democracy, does one group of people have the right to impose their version of morality on the rest of society? To what extent should this be aimed for?

2. I'm intrigued as to how "Family Values" are supported specifically by the Conservatives/Republicans/WhichEverLotUseThisPhraseInYourCountry.

The Conservatives here were clearly against "Family Values" - their destruction of working men's jobs on economic grounds did untold damage to thousands of traditional familes in the Midlands and North during the 80s under Thatcher. You could make an argument that it was justified on economic grounds, but how did concern for "Family Values" come in there?

3. How does "Family Values" inform a policy of allowing employers to pay as low wages as they can, what by opposing minimum wage legislation and bringing in anti-union legislation? How does this assist parents in providing for their offspring?

4. How does "Family Values" inform opposing the requirement that employers be flexible with regard to the childcare arrangements that working parents need to make?

You can be opposed to these things, sure, but I don't see how you can trumpet "Family Values" at the same time. The right-wing adoption of this label appears to be hollow to me. As a family man, I know what policies help our family and which hinder it. The right are not into helping us. If they had their way, I doubt my wife would have been able to have the maternity leave she got. Perhaps we wouldn't be able to be a family at all.

So, define what you mean by 'Family Values'. I get fed up to the back teeth with the likes of Jerry Falwell going on about how the US election represented a triumph for 'Family Values', when the likes of him are obsessed about abortion and homosexuality (not wrong to be concerned about them but wrong to be concerned at the exclusion of ohter issues) but couldn't give a fig for the above issues

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Marcia]

When Christians are so big on "family values," it often makes single parents feel left out. I know, since I became one when my son was not quite 8 yrs. old. At the time, I was not a believer and it seemed Christians almost worshipped "the family."

The husband and wife being together is the ideal and is Biblical, but there are a lot of people out there like I was who are watching the Christians and noticing how compassionate they are. They (the Christians) never struck me as a compassionate, just smug about their "family values" (especially when that self-righteous Moral Majority was around).

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
1. In a democracy, does one group of people have the right to impose their version of morality on the rest of society? To what extent should this be aimed for?

Here, the tyranny of the majority is supposed to be guarded against by the courts. Unfortunately, the courts are less than stellar in most cases, and have abandoned interpretation of the law for creation of the law. Not sure what your second question means.

2. I'm intrigued as to how "Family Values" are supported specifically by the Conservatives/Republicans/WhichEverLotUseThisPhraseInYourCountry.

The Conservatives here were clearly against "Family Values" - their destruction of working men's jobs on economic grounds did untold damage to thousands of traditional familes in the Midlands and North during the 80s under Thatcher. You could make an argument that it was justified on economic grounds, but how did concern for "Family Values" come in there?

3. How does "Family Values" inform a policy of allowing employers to pay as low wages as they can, what by opposing minimum wage legislation and bringing in anti-union legislation? How does this assist parents in providing for their offspring?

These two questions seem related to financial issues. It is the position of conservatives/traditional values that government should be limited. IT is not the government's place to step in on wage issues or union issues. Quite frankly, the unions are out of control here in America and are doing great damage to the economy in many ways. They have outlived their usefulness, IMO. We have to remember that the government's role is not to provide for families, or even to assist the parents to provide for their families. Here, you have a distinct philosophical difference.

Having said that, the new deal provisions of the middle of the century here have been disastrous in that they cost more money than they have provided. The amount of money spent to fight poverty could have prevented poverty simply by being given to people.

4. How does "Family Values" inform opposing the requirement that employers be flexible with regard to the childcare arrangements that working parents need to make?

Again, it is an issue of the place of government. That is not the government's job. Conservatives, in principle, stand for limited government. Many imtes, the childcare arrangements are necessary only because the families want a higher standard of living ... bigger house, more cars, etc. In fact, in some cases, the wife's salary for working is completely eaten up by the expense incurred because she is working. I think some people just aren't thinking wisely. That is not an across the board case, but probably in more cases than not.

However, the fact is this: If a mom decides to work, then the family has to pay the price for that decision, not the government.

he right-wing adoption of this label appears to be hollow to me.[/qutoe]The right wing here didn't adopt those labels. It has always been their position. I don't know what the right is doing over there, but by and large, the right here is the more sensible position on most things. It doesn't play as well because of the heavy emphasis on personal responsibility for choices. People looking for a handout usually tilt to the left.

If they had their way, I doubt my wife would have been able to have the maternity leave she got. Perhaps we wouldn't be able to be a family at all.

That may be ... but here, that is not the government's job. Choices have consequences. If you choose to have a family, that requires certain things. My wife does not work ... We have made that choice and it costs us to be sure. But I don't expect the government to bail me out of that. Maternity leave and the like should be handled through the company, not through the government. This is not a world of "having your cake and eating it too."

So, define what you mean by 'Family Values'.

Family values are usually thought of in terms of traditional families, higher social mores, being against the proliferation of profanity and sexuality in the media and entertainment, etc. Family values people are usually conservatives, which means along with the above, they trumpet the personal responsibility, fiscal sanity, tax cuts to give families and working people more money.

That in and of itself shows the disconnect in so many peoople's minds. The "working man" complains that he is not making enough money, and then votes for people who don't want to cut taxes to give them more money in their pocket. It is total absurdiby, but shows the lack of thinking that goes on in American politics too often.

 

[Gina B]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

The ceremony in which a marriage is enacted and announced to the community is called a wedding. A wedding in which a couple marry in the' eyes of the law' is called a civil marriage. Religions also facilitate weddings, in the 'eyes of God.' In many European and some Latin American countries, where someone chooses a religious ceremony, they must also hold that ceremony separate from the civil ceremony. In some countries, notably the United States, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Spain both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and community ceremony also serves as an agent of the state to enact the civil marriage. That does not mean that the state is recognising religious marriages; the 'civil' ceremony just takes place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If for whatever reason, that civil element of the full ceremony is left out, in the eyes of the law no marriage took place, irrespective of the holding of the religious ceremony.

The way in which a marriage is enacted has changed over time, as has the institution of marriage itself. In Europe during the Middle Ages, marriage was enacted by the couple promising verbally to each other that they would be married to each other. This promise was known as the verbum. As part of the Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state. By the 1600s many of the Protestant European countries had heavy state involvement in marriage.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Here, the tyranny of the majority is supposed to be guarded against by the courts.

Yes, that's true. But sometimes, when the majority is us Christians, we don't always remember that. If we're going to expect the courts to protect us, we also need to let the courts protect others from us. We can't have our cake and eat it too.

Originally posted by Marcia:
When Christians are so big on "family values," it often makes single parents feel left out.

You are so right. I can't tell you enough horror stories about how I was treated when I was a single dad with a little girl. Does the phrase "second class or lower" mean anything? I on at least one occaision had store security follow me when I was shopping in the little girls' clothing section. And don't even get me started on being banned from the little girl's dressing room.

 

[Matt Black]

But you see, Pastor Larry, this is where the conservatives in American politics are so inconsistent. On the one hand, you want the government to intervene to promote one set of measures that strengthen families (or at least to prohibit those which weaken the family), OTOH you DON'T want the government to intervene to promote other measures which strengthen the family (or at least to prohobit those which weaken the family). You can't have it both ways! Either it is the government's job to intervene or...er...it isn't. I utterly fail to see how someone who claims to be pro-family can adhere to both views simultaneously with integrity

I do wish Christians would be more concerned sometimes with measures that turn more marriages into committed relationships and less bothered about measures that purport to turn committed relationships into 'marriage'. The likes of Newt Gingrich, and indeed many of our churches, would do well to clear up their own backyard - failed marriages etc before casting stones at others from the 'security' of their own glasshouses

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[freeatlast]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Voting in ten states in the US all affirmed the position in those states on traditional marriage and family issues. The volatility of the issue brought a lot of evangelical Christians to the poll (and, in Ohio, are credited with the Bush win).

Should this be a "national" issue, or is it better to remain on the local/state level?

Will making a "national" decision infringe on the state's rights or on MY bedroom rights?

Does ANYONE (government) have the "authority" to make a marriage except God?

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ON GAY/SODOMY but on the issue of national v state v no policy on "marriage/family". Thank you.

The problem is in the little word "Rights." Unfortunately we have become a nation of right claimers rather then moral responsibility dooers. because of this there does need to be a national law that forbides homosexual marriages. The claimed Christian society has so slipped from its calling that we now want rights even when those rights violate the intent of God. At one time it was illegal to even be a homosexual and it could send you to prison. Here is where we need to retun to and the issue of homosexual marriages would be a mute point.

 

[Matt Black]

There are only two options: theocracy or a secular state.

If you go for theocracy, you can make every rule conform to Christian teachings (we'll put off deciding which set of Christians gets to decide what those are for now...). Things like abortion, homosexuality, worshipping Allah and eating meat on Fridays are now illegal. Roughly 65-70% of the population would move to a more tolerant nation, but that's just incidental.

If you have a secular state, then it must make its laws while taking everyone into consideration. Oddly enough, that includes people like Muslims and atheists. How is this possible? - by only making laws against activities which cause demonstrable harm to others - such as abortion.

I have a fundamental problem as a Baptist with our long tradition of the separation of Church and State with religion and law mixing. While he is a good deal more radical than I, Stanley Hauerwas and I absolutely agree that religion should not get into politics. Once religion gets mixed into politics it allows the political agenda to shape the religious agenda. That can only be a bad thing.

In the case of legislating morality, as in legislating heterosexual marriage as behavior to which we must adhere, I think it does not have the effect some would claim for the laws. I believe you come to your morality through the teachings of your parents and the community which surrounds you, not because of a piece of legislation. By way of example, you are not going to believe murder is bad because there are laws prohibiting it, you are going to believe that murder is bad because you have learned about it from your family and friends.

In the case of homosexual marriage it is abundantly clear that a number of people think it to be immoral. If you are raised in such a household you will think it to be immoral whether there is some ink on paper in a collection of statues on the subject or not. If you are raised in a household where it is not considered immoral the fact that somebody convinced a legislature to pass a law on the subject will not change your moral understanding on the subject. If the notion that the great undecided will be persuaded by a statute is the motivating factor, you might want to look at how many crimes are committed despite the fact that they are not only prohibited by law, but punished as well.

A more general argument against an admixture of religion and government is the camel's nose under the tent flap scenario. Experience should tell us that once government gets into the business of deciding morals where people are not affected in their health or safety, government will keep going on the same track. Do you really want some of the legislators you see on the news telling you about your morals in more detail? Do you really want the Newt Gingrichs of this world telling you that you are immoral, and subject to sanction at law, unless you attend church every Wednesday night, and their particular church which or course is The One and Only True Church (TM) at that?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pastor Larry]

But you see, Pastor Larry, this is where the conservatives in American politics are so inconsistent. On the one hand, you want the government to intervene to promote one set of measures that strengthen families (or at least to prohibit those which weaken the family), OTOH you DON'T want the government to intervene to promote other measures which strengthen the family (or at least to prohobit those which weaken the family). You can't have it both ways! Either it is the government's job to intervene or...er...it isn't. I utterly fail to see how someone who claims to be pro-family can adhere to both views simultaneously with integrity

What "both views" are you talking about? If you are comparing laws about marriage with laws about family leave, then you are comparing apples to oranges. Laws about family leave and child care provision most likely weaken families. They don't strengthen them. But in any case, it is not the governments job to do that. I am not sure why you find that troubling.

I do wish Christians would be more concerned sometimes with measures that turn more marriages into committed relationships and less bothered about measures that purport to turn committed relationships into 'marriage'.

Again, not sure what exactly you are trying to say. Marriage is what it is. WE don't get to redefine it to make sinners feel more acceptable. They can sin if they like under the laws of this nation. However, they should not be permitted to hijack "marriage" to try to make them feel better about it.

The likes of Newt Gingrich, and indeed many of our churches, would do well to clear up their own backyard - failed marriages etc before casting stones at others from the 'security' of their own glasshouses

The fact that some have been wrong does not mean the right htings they say or do are less right. It is typical for the party in the wrong to start pointing fingers ... "well they did it too." That is completely irrelevant. Right and wrong are right and wrong regardless of who promotes it.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But you see, Pastor Larry, this is where the conservatives in American politics are so inconsistent. On the one hand, you want the government to intervene to promote one set of measures that strengthen families (or at least to prohibit those which weaken the family), OTOH you DON'T want the government to intervene to promote other measures which strengthen the family (or at least to prohobit those which weaken the family). You can't have it both ways! Either it is the government's job to intervene or...er...it isn't. I utterly fail to see how someone who claims to be pro-family can adhere to both views simultaneously with integrity

What "both views" are you talking about? If you are comparing laws about marriage with laws about family leave, then you are comparing apples to oranges. Laws about family leave and child care provision most likely weaken families. They don't strengthen them. But in any case, it is not the governments job to do that. I am not sure why you find that troubling.

[ </font>[/QUOTE]The two views to which I was referring, for clarity:-

1. "It is the job of governments to intervene to prevent gay civil unions and heterosexual non-marital long-term relationships being given legal recognition because by so doing they would protect family values"

2. "It is not the job of governments to intervene to promote family-friendly working practices in industry and commerce because by so doing they would protect family values"

I don't see how one can hold #1 but not #2 without being, quite literally, double-minded

As an Baptist I would naturally say that the church is meant to be an 'advance guard of the kingdom', a grassroots pressure group, a dissident body or an alternative society - anything but a ruling body.

Evangelical pleas for 'more Christians in government' and songs with lines like 'into our hands he will give the ground we claim' always gave me the shivers, and sounded horribly close to a kind of Christian imperialism. I personally think Constantine was the worst thing that ever happened to the church, and I rejoice at the demise of Christendom.

I totally support Christians being in politics and expressing Christian values in their campaigning. I worry a lot about attempts to create a 'Christian society' (TS Eliot liked the idea but he was an anti-Semite) or to impose 'Christian values' in law. 'OT values' or 'let's all get back to the 10 commandments' is worse. If all we need for a good life in society is the 10 commandments, what is the point of Jesus ? And if we are freed from law by grace, why are we seeking to impose that law on the rest of society? We are under the new covenant, not the old - and secular society is not under either.


Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by Matt Black:


I do wish Christians would be more concerned sometimes with measures that turn more marriages into committed relationships and less bothered about measures that purport to turn committed relationships into 'marriage'.

I triple amen that comment!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Matt, I don't see the problem there. You are talking about two different areas. It is like saying that the government should not be concerned about stealing but should be concerned that people have water faucets on the outside of their house. They are totally unconnected. The first is a clear issue in which the government has an abiding interest ... the legitimization of marriage and family. The second is an issue for an employee to take up with his/her employer.

As for the church, the church is not a governing body in society in the least. They should make their voice heard however. I think Christians are way too caught up in politics. The hope of the world is not politics. It is the gospel. We need to devote ourselves to that. But in the meantime, we should make our voice heard.

 

[Matt Black]

I hear your stance but don't understand the reasoning behind it. Why is the former a "clear issue in which the government has an abiding interest"...but the latter is not?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pastor Larry]

Because the former is a moral incongruity, like stealing. The latter is not a moral incongruity. In other words, homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. Lack of family leave is neither. It is a convenience offered to families. It is not wrong to not have it.

 

[Matt Black]

So now we come full circle back to my post at the top of page 2. Just because you and I think that something is immoral and unnatural, does that give us the right to impose that view on non-Christian society-at-large and, if so:-

1. Why?
2. If you establish the precedent that one group of people's morals may be legislatively imposed on others who do not share those morals, then by that same precedent you permit others to legislate their imposition of their morals on us...


Yours in Christ

Matt