What constitutes "marriage"?

[ituttut]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
During WWII, the British had a saying, "The problem with Americans is that they are oversexed and they're over here." Well, their observation about being oversexed hits painfully close to home. With our Hollywood generated culture, we seem to think sex is the ultimate experience and goal of life. With such confused ideals, it is hard for us to realize there is something more to marriage that is better and beyond sex.

In the body of marriage, there is something physically better to give such pleasure? Tell Sarah that. She was looking forward to it. I imagine Abraham was smiling at the prospect. God give his approval, and saw to it that it would be enjoyable. If not, we wouldn’t be here.

One of the problems with our marriages today is that we believe sex is the ultimate.

I believe God did the best he could for us. I for one really appreciate all that He has done for me, and my wife, and freely take of the gifts he has furnished us. This seems to have rubbed off on our children and grand children.

We have folks getting divorced on sexual incompatibility. If the sex isn't awesome, then our marriages are failures according to current thinking. Remember that animals breed (i.e. have sex) without marriage. Sex’s role in marriage is vastly overstated and such thinking contributes to bad marriages and broken marriages. What happens to the marriage when the spouse ages and becomes less sexually attractive?

We’re getting up there. I’ll be careful to not go over the line, and only say “nothing has change for us”; all is as before. We are one attracted to each other.

What happens to the marriage when sickness or physical problems remove the element of sex from the relationship? And we have not even addressed the problems caused by the fears and stresses created by the need to produce a powerful sexual performance.

The first time yes, but it becomes like walking. We are not to be stressed or fearful. It then becomes mechanical, sure to produce “breakdowns”, usually by being overworked

.

Marriage is not just to make sex legal. It is about a unique and special covenantal relationship between a man and woman that is beyond sex. When we get away from this Biblical view, our marriages are in trouble. Just open your eyes and look around you.

Amen!

Christian faith, ituttut

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Gina L:
Nobody here has asserted that all acts of physical intimacy immediately constitute a marriage. I admire the passion behind the statements, but I've got to wonder who you're talking to, and why.

Other than the act of marriage cannot make a marriage. I believe it to be covetousness of lust, our desire of the eye and heart or have one to summit to us to satisfy our soul.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by donnA:
Try claiming that kind of 'marriage' on your taxes.

They do. Without harassment. Not only do they claim married status on their tax forms, but the ladies have changed their names on their state driver's licenses and with the Social Security Administration.

The Feds don't care one way or another whether one is married by common law or statutory law, and the taxes assessed by my state are based on the federal tax returns.

Do you know anyone who is married by common law? Obviously not.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
Those I know who have entered into a common law union (again, this is not cohabitation, but a marriage with a ceremony, the exchange of vows, witnesses and a document) even in my state have no problem with insurance and all the other doomsday prophecies offered in this thread

Neither do homosexuals. This is no proof.</font>[/QUOTE]It's proof that Donna was incorrect to assert that folks married by common law will have problems with insurance benefits and taxes in states that don't recognize common law marriage.

"Filing papers" seems to make it "legal".

My state doesn't recognize common law marriage, no matter what the county clerk might have in his file cabinets.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
After a certain length of time, which constitutes the legal requirements, and is a public acknowledgement.

I wanted to highlight this statement, because it is indicative of the common, but erroneous, notion that folks have to cohabit for a certain amount of time to be considered married by common law.

This is not true anywhere in the United States.

A common law marriage is just as immediate and binding as marriage by statute.

 

[donnA]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by donnA:
You can consider yourself married to anyone you want, it still is not leagl. And if it isn't legal for pastors do do marriage cerimonies without a license, then why are they breaking the law (from a previous post several pages back). For christians to go around breaking the law there is no excuse.
Try claiming that kind of 'marriage' on your taxes.

Again, in states that recognize common law as legal, you can indeed claim your spouse on your taxes. </font>[/QUOTE]Our state does not.

 

[donnA]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
Those I know who have entered into a common law union (again, this is not cohabitation, but a marriage with a ceremony, the exchange of vows, witnesses and a document) even in my state have no problem with insurance and all the other doomsday prophecies offered in this thread

Neither do homosexuals. This is no proof.</font>[/QUOTE]It's proof that Donna was incorrect to assert that folks married by common law will have problems with insurance benefits and taxes in states that don't recognize common law marriage.

"Filing papers" seems to make it "legal".

My state doesn't recognize common law marriage, no matter what the county clerk might have in his file cabinets. </font>[/QUOTE]I know for a fact that when people aren't married they can not file joint, at least here they can not. Here you can not add someone to your family plan health insurance if you aren't married.

 

[Gina B]

Donna, common law marriages are recognized by the state as legal, in certain states. I know OH has phased it out, but it used to be that couples in common law marriages were recognized the same as those married in traditional ways, ie by filing in the more common court procedure.

Marcia, I'm still looking for the laws that affect us personally. Here is part of it for the work place.
LINK

It begins on page 38, or 39 of the document itself. Do not look for it on the page numbers of the article, but on the document itself. When you're done you'll realize why it's so hard to go back and find everything I found before...I didn't realize I'd need it again, we were using what we found for a one-day petition. There are a LOT of laws and case laws!

BTW, I've asked a friend to post on this topic, as he has more knowledge than I do on the biblical aspects and concerns of marriage. I look forward to that, even if we don't agree on everything, as it will turn the focus back to the main topic of marriage and what constitutes one rather than these side issues of it.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

States may not recognize common law marriages that are formed in their states, however all states recognize marriages from other states. Therefore, someone from a state that doesn't allow them WOULD recognize, for example, a common law marriage that was of a couple moving from Colorado.

Also, insurance benefits from employers are not subject to marriage laws. Each company can, and does, decide who is covered, such as dependent children, elderly parents, domestic partners, etc.

I would also reiterate that common law is every bit a marriage as if a justice of the peace or minister were involved. You cannot just walk away from such a marriage. To dissolve it, you need a divorce.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
After a certain length of time, which constitutes the legal requirements, and is a public acknowledgement.

I wanted to highlight this statement, because it is indicative of the common, but erroneous, notion that folks have to cohabit for a certain amount of time to be considered married by common law.

This is not true anywhere in the United States.

A common law marriage is just as immediate and binding as marriage by statute. </font>[/QUOTE]Where I live now does not recognize common law marriages at all, and has not for many, many years. Where I moved from recognized it after you had been shacking up together for seven years, and then only for inheritance purposes.

My wife works in insurance. There is no requirement for marriage to share insurance benefits. Homosexual couples and shacking-up couples are eligible. Most states that do recognize common law marriage require that you are already shacking up and are living as a married couple. However, there are only 12 states that allow common law marriage (some only for inheritance purposes), and only 16 states that recognize common law marriages from other states.

There is no law requiring states to recognize marriages from other states.

Here's a source from a pro-homosexual group, so you know that it's not being presented by those who are opposed to common law marriage: Common Law Marriage States

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
After a certain length of time, which constitutes the legal requirements, and is a public acknowledgement.

I wanted to highlight this statement, because it is indicative of the common, but erroneous, notion that folks have to cohabit for a certain amount of time to be considered married by common law.

This is not true anywhere in the United States.

A common law marriage is just as immediate and binding as marriage by statute. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen! They coinhabit. They have made themselves one in each other of act and deed.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Gina L:
Donna, common law marriages are recognized by the state as legal, in certain states. I know OH has phased it out, but it used to be that couples in common law marriages were recognized the same as those married in traditional ways, ie by filing in the more common court procedure.

Marcia, I'm still looking for the laws that affect us personally. Here is part of it for the work place.
LINK

It begins on page 38, or 39 of the document itself. Do not look for it on the page numbers of the article, but on the document itself. When you're done you'll realize why it's so hard to go back and find everything I found before...I didn't realize I'd need it again, we were using what we found for a one-day petition. There are a LOT of laws and case laws!

BTW, I've asked a friend to post on this topic, as he has more knowledge than I do on the biblical aspects and concerns of marriage. I look forward to that, even if we don't agree on everything, as it will turn the focus back to the main topic of marriage and what constitutes one rather than these side issues of it.

I'm not that friend, but I am here to help as to understanding "common law marriage", as well are what "marriage" is.

My understanding is in he District of Columbia, and fifteen states, they recognize “common law marriages”. Using terminology of “legally” acceptable marriage, words such as “husband and wife”, our dependant children, etc. makes the woman the man’s spouse for things in the legal realm, including “Federal and State Taxes”.

To get out of this marriage that is “common”, it must be done in the same manner as those that went through the process of making it “legal” by paper and to be seen as proper in society. The couple that has been “married” properly married as decreed by scripture must now do what God allowed, but didn’t want to happen. The couple will meet what “proper human society” demands. They get a divorce by the “legal” system.

But the fact will remain that this couple will remain married to each other as long as they live, just as those that had “proper” papers to show to the world they were “legally married”. Regardless of what man does in the legal system of the world, a marriage was committed upon the act of the two becoming one.

In the number of “common law marriages” I know of, which is a good number, none ever sot out the divorce route. It seems they understand they are married to each other and don’t care what other people think of their marriage, for they know what marriage is. It is when two comes together in order to be made one. They then, if they are in an understanding state, or government will take what it will give them for protection of taxes, and of other things afford those with “papers”.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Magnetic Poles:
States may not recognize common law marriages that are formed in their states, however all states recognize marriages from other states. Therefore, someone from a state that doesn't allow them WOULD recognize, for example, a common law marriage that was of a couple moving from Colorado.

Also, insurance benefits from employers are not subject to marriage laws. Each company can, and does, decide who is covered, such as dependent children, elderly parents, domestic partners, etc.

I would also reiterate that common law is every bit a marriage as if a justice of the peace or minister were involved. You cannot just walk away from such a marriage. To dissolve it, you need a divorce.

Understanding of the situation.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

[Brother Bob]

They have changed the law in Kentucky where a minister does not have to have a license from the State to preform a marriage ceremony any more.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
Where I live now does not recognize common law marriages at all, and has not for many, many years. Where I moved from recognized it after you had been shacking up together for seven years, and then only for inheritance purposes.

That was never true anywhere in the United States. It's an urban myth.

Listen, I've been asked once or twice to advise a young couple on common law marriage, and I advise them against it unless they have a genuine conscience against a willing acknowledgment of civil authority acting as a third party in their union. In other words, unless they're true conscientious objectors, then they should go ahead and get a license.

The objection (and you've heard it in Gina's posts) goes something like this: God created the institution of marriage. God is the one who joins men and women together. Therefore, God is the third party in the union, not the State. We feel we would be worshipping men as God to submit to their ordinances in this area.

Baptists believe in the priesthood of the believer, and that no government has authority over one's conscience. I can in good conscience accept those who enter into a common law marriage as truly married. Even if they are married in a state that criminalizes it.

I think if you asked God, He would tell you pretty much the same things I have.

 

[Hope of Glory]

Common Law Marriage

Here's another link on common law marriage. Only a small minority of states even recognize them as being legitimate.

 

[Brother Bob]

I must say that we have not or neither would we accept a common law marriage in our Church.

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
After a certain length of time, which constitutes the legal requirements, and is a public acknowledgement.

I wanted to highlight this statement, because it is indicative of the common, but erroneous, notion that folks have to cohabit for a certain amount of time to be considered married by common law.

This is not true anywhere in the United States.

A common law marriage is just as immediate and binding as marriage by statute. </font>[/QUOTE]Aaron,
You are making definitive statements that simply are not true.
Oklahoma, for example, does recognize common-law marriages. But a five-part test is required to truly meet the terms of an Oklahoma common-law marriage. Cohabitation for a period of time before it is considered a valid marriage is ONE of the requirements.
In no way is common-law marriage as immediate as marriage by statute.

Karen

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
Where I live now does not recognize common law marriages at all, and has not for many, many years. Where I moved from recognized it after you had been shacking up together for seven years, and then only for inheritance purposes.

That was never true anywhere in the United States. It's an urban myth.

Listen, I've been asked once or twice to advise a young couple on common law marriage, and I advise them against it unless they have a genuine conscience against a willing acknowledgment of civil authority acting as a third party in their union. In other words, unless they're true conscientious objectors, then they should go ahead and get a license.

........</font>[/QUOTE]Aaron,
It is not an urban myth. I urge you to do a little more research before you are advising young couples.
In Oklahoma, the length of time is nebulous, but cohabitation for a period of time IS one of five things that must be done to meet the terms of a common-law marriage.

Karen

 

[Hope of Glory]

Also, Canada requires one year of shacking up before they are considered married.