What we are saying is that you are married when the law says you are married.
Oh, I get what you're saying. I still think the logic is flawed.
People are saying, essentially, that sex is or isn't a sin based on what the laws of the land say about it.
If the state recognizes the marriage, sex isn't a sin.
If the state doesn't recognize the marriage, sex is a sin.
So... people are basing their definition of sin on what the secular government has to say about it. (Rather than turning to God and Scripture to inform them).
Since the secular government does not outlaw premarital sex, appealing to the 'law of the land' to determine when or if a person is sinning before God is faulty. Sex isn't a 'sin' before marriage according to the law of the land. So a person can 'obey the law of the land' without getting married according to the laws of the land.
Furthermore, people can shack up and call themselves married if they want to even in states that don't recognize common law marriage. There is no law against that. They may miss out on some benefits or have to do extra paperwork to get the same benefits as marriage certificate holders.... but they are not breaking any laws to call themselves married and live together as married without getting a license or certificate.
The "law of the land" wasn't crafted with that purpose in mind. Marriage licenses were originally imposed in an effort to prevent interracial marriages in the United States. The government, the people, decided that they could stick their noses into people's lives and say who can or cannot marry whom.
The faulty part of appealing to the government to tell you when you're sinning or not is that very often the laws of the land are unjust. What if you were a black man in 1920 who wanted to marry a white woman? The law of the land was such that it would be illegal. So, if the couple said "we love each other, God blesses our union, we're married and we don't care what the busy-bodies at City Hall say about it" then, by your reasoning, that couple would be in sin for not obeying the law of the land.
The thing is that legally speaking though none of these are as easy to prove as "we're married" as a simple marriage license. Say your spouse goes into the hospital, now as the spouse you have the right to visit them and you may have the say in important medical decisions if they are not capable of giving consent themselves.
I never said it wasn't more practical to go ahead and get the license. I myself am going to get a license and have witnesses and record my marriage certificate and all that jazz. But something being practical or easier doesn't mean that it's the only legal method. Nor does it mean that we can rightfully judge anyone who takes a less practical route as living in sin.
There are simple ways around things like this, Kirk, if a couple doesn't want to have the government all up in their business. It's called a power of attorney. And it's an easier document to get than a marriage certificate. In many cases it's cheaper, too. And for the most part, even married couples would do well to make sure they have a power of attorney for their spouse. Even being married and having a marriage certificate doesn't guarantee that hospital staff and such will allow a spouse to make medical decisions. A power of attorney lets the person decide when his/her attorney in fact can act and when he/she cannot.
Now if you have a license, if the hospital won't belive you, you can grab the license and prove it. Plus she's changed her name, she has the same last name and address as me.
You mean the certificate, I presume.
And yet.... you've probably never been in such a situation before so let me clue you in..... if someone says "he's my husband" or "she's my wife" to hospital personnel, they don't generally ask for a marriage certificate. They have neither the time nor the inclination to do background checks on people. (What they check is whether a person has insurance or not). Usually, they take people's word for it unless they have reason to believe otherwise. For example, unless someone else is saying "that's my son and that's not his wife" or some such.
With a common law marriage, especially if you don't change the name your case to be believed is a lot harder. A lot of couples are shacking up these days.
And more and more women every year are not taking their husband's name when they marry, anyway.
And again, most people take people's word for it that they're married. It's not like you have to go around proving to everyone you meet that you're married. Most transactions that a husband and wife enter into together do not require proof of marriage.
Even if you can get a common law marriage I still think the license is the better way. It usually doesn't cost a lot of money just to get a license. But the license can't be denied.
Again, not arguing practicalities. The government has intentionally made it more beneficial to follow their bureaucracies.
But some people have moral objections to the government being the arbiter of who can or cannot marry. And those people can, IMO, justifiably say that they are married in God's eyes whether or not the government recognizes it as such.
God is the One who instituted marriage. The government only recently stuck their nose into it in a power grab to control people's daily lives. Appealing to the law of man to determine God's mind on a matter is always going to be a faulty proposition. Especially when the laws weren't crafted with God in mind.