Laws on Marriage/Family

[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.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

It's Biblical issue,and not to be degraded on the level of man's governement, err "divorce" ring a bell?

Leave out the Biblical mandates and you have a discussion, err, there is none.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Go ahead and show biblical mandates. Just don't go off on another thread on gay/sodomite.

 

[TC]

I think that it should be a national issue. Seems like if it is left at the state level, a state that has laws that don't explicitly state it will not recognize any marriage different from its own definition, then it is forced to accept any other stated definition of marriage. I think we do need a federal marriage amendment stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. It also should explicitly ban all same sex unions - civil or otherwise. I think governments are responsible to recognize and up hold marriage as God has defined it. Just my two cents.

 

[Gina B]

Originally posted by TC:
I think governments are responsible to recognize and up hold marriage as God has defined it. Just my two cents.

Whose God/god? Are you saying that the morals of YOUR religion should be forced into law nationally in the United States?

Do you WANT to give the government the power to validate and approve a vow you made between your spouse and God? Should they really have that right?
Now, if someone wants the benefits the government can offer to people whose marriage they approve of, they might have reason to want the government to recognize their marriage. However, one should never, ever depend on the government or believe they have the power to tell you whether or not you are married or unmarried in God's eyes.
Gina

 

[williemakeit]

I think that these issues are best settled at the state level. Of course, the Federal Government continues to exceed the boundries established by the Constitution. I also believe that the state should not pass any law that infringes on my expression of religion (i.e., forcing me to rent my property to queers/sodomites). I am looking forward to the day when I can move back to one of the red states.

 

[TC]

Whose God/god? Are you saying that the morals of YOUR religion should be forced into law nationally in the United States?

I'm saying that nationally, marraige should be defined as being between one man and one woman. It would solve the problem of one state defining marriage one way and another state defining marriage a different way then having activist judges force it on the other state.

Do you WANT to give the government the power to validate and approve a vow you made between your spouse and God? Should they really have that right?
Now, if someone wants the benefits the government can offer to people whose marriage they approve of, they might have reason to want the government to recognize their marriage. However, one should never, ever depend on the government or believe they have the power to tell you whether or not you are married or unmarried in God's eyes.

What in the world are you talking about? The government already does. You are not recognized as married in the U.S. if you do not file for a marriage license and have a ceremony of some sort conducted by someone authorized by the government to conduct it. If you don't believe me, then claim someone as your spouse on your tax return that you are not legally married to and see how much trouble you get into from the IRS.

 

[Gina B]

Why do feel you need the state to recognize your marriage in order for it to be valid?
No, the state does not. They do it for tax purposes and the like. I can go right now to a pastor in town who will perform a marriage ceremony if I ask him, and the marriage will be perfectly valid in God's eyes. In fact I wouldn't even need a pastor to validate or recognize a vow I spoke to my husband and my God.
If I wanted a tax break for a marriage I'd do it for that reason, but in no way would I consider it something that had to be done to make my marriage "real". Other than for taxes, why is it important for you if the state recognizes your marriage? The only reason they won't recognize a gay one right now is because it'll cost them money. Being gay isn't illegal. Living with your gay partner isn't illegal. So why would marrying be? I really can't believe it's a moral decision for the government.
Gina

 

[go2church]

Like it at the state level if the federal government waded into the issue how would that effect the individual states already existing laws of marriage such as issuing licenses, setting age limits, determining family relations that are permissable? I also like trusting the states on the issue. Even in generally liberal Oregon, they voted to limit marriage to a man and a woman. People are overwhelming against gay marriage.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Gina L:
Why do feel you need the state to recognize your marriage in order for it to be valid?
No, the state does not. They do it for tax purposes and the like. I can go right now to a pastor in town who will perform a marriage ceremony if I ask him, and the marriage will be perfectly valid in God's eyes. In fact I wouldn't even need a pastor to validate or recognize a vow I spoke to my husband and my God.
If I wanted a tax break for a marriage I'd do it for that reason, but in no way would I consider it something that had to be done to make my marriage "real". Other than for taxes, why is it important for you if the state recognizes your marriage? The only reason they won't recognize a gay one right now is because it'll cost them money. Being gay isn't illegal. Living with your gay partner isn't illegal. So why would marrying be? I really can't believe it's a moral decision for the government.
Gina

Try reading 1 Peter 2. He tells you to obey every ordinance of man. You live in the U.S. So, you need to obey the laws for marriage in this country. To be recognized as being married here, you must do what the state requires - all the states I have been to require a licence and many a blood test as a minimum. If you do not, then Peter says you are sinning and giving place for others to speak evil of you. We are not to do that. We are to live to a higher standard than others. Jesus himself said to give to Caesar the things that are Caesars and Paul also addresses obediance to the laws of the governments under which you live. It really doesn't get any clearer than that.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The problem with making it a state issue is the "full faith and credit" clause. It will not be long, in spite of DOMA and state constitutions, until activists courts are insisting that gay unions be recognized in every state, regardless of where they were entered into.

A biblical marriage is solemnized by the state and recognized as such. That does not make it unbiblical in the least. A couple who is not legally married is living in fornication. Obey God, get a license, and do it right. Don't hide behind piety.

 

[Gina B]

There IS no law that says your marriage must be recognized by the state. There is a law that says your marriage must be recognized by the state in order for you to claim the benefits of marriage in that state.
You can go get yourself a girlfriend or boyfriend TODAY and live as a married couple and there's nothing illegal about it.
Gina

 

[JGrubbs]

If the federal government trys to ignore DOMA and the State Constitutions and force gay marriage using activist courts, it would be a great time for the states to excercise their state's rights and tell the activist courts to bug off! We need state govenors and legislators who are willing to stand up for what is right, regardless of what the federal judges think or say!

 

[Pastor Larry]

You can go get yourself a girlfriend or boyfriend TODAY and live as a married couple and there's nothing illegal about it.

Except for that pesky little reminder about fornication in Scripture. If you are going to "live as a married couple," then you need to be a married couple. The country in which we live clearly defines that.

 

[Gina B]

No it does not. Show me where. Married in the eyes of the state, yes.
Christian marriage in the Bible consisted of an agreement between a family. Today we call it "common law marriage", although Caesar has not taken away that too.
Marriage approval by government started with Rome and is NOT a Christian concept. If you want to argue scripture go by the scriptural examples of marriage, none of which included a pastor or a government. If you find an example let me know!
Gina

 

[Matt Black]

Ah-ha, now we get to the meat.

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

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? Inheritance is a bad example for me, as I know little about it, but surely everyone can agree that some things are reasonable for the state to give to committed relationships. Surely the fact that they have been reserved in the past for marriage is irrelevant.

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?

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

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[TC]

Today we call it "common law marriage"

Not in Minnesota or a number of other states.

Marriage approval by government started with Rome and is NOT a Christian concept. If you want to argue scripture go by the scriptural examples of marriage, none of which included a pastor or a government.

Nevertheless, Peter said to obey every ordinance of man - he lived under roman rule. Your argument is with what God inspired Peter to write.

 

[Gina B]

Great, now show me where in the law/ordinances that you must be married by the government in order to live a married life, and/or where they say that a marriage is not considered biblical if you don't have it approved by the state.

And like I said, Caesar took away the state's recognition of common law marriage for most state's. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The government quit calling abortion murder btw, so what do you call it now?

Gina

 

[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

 

[Pastor Larry]

Show me where. Married in the eyes of the state, yes.

Yes, look at all your documents, forms, investments, medical releases ... all of it ... There is clearly a recognition of married or unmarried. People who are not married are living in fornication. The state, under the authority of God, has said what to do to get married. The obedient Christian follows that.

But the bigger question is, Why wouldn't you?