• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!

Spiritual Marriage:

Stealth001

Seeker
Sep 8, 2011
546
15
✟23,292.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
I know people hate when I say this but the bible says to follow the laws of your government, unless they interfere with our lives as christians. So if the state doesn't recognize your marriage, then you are not married in Gods eyes since you are not following the laws of where you live.

I think you’re not considered a few things. First, the laws of civil marriage DO interfere with our lives as Christians. First, the grounds for divorce per civil marriage are unbiblical. In addition, to dissolve a civil marriage (divorce) one must follow family court law. Family court law isn’t always friendly towards devout Christian parents. It’s laws are not based on Christianity. And… Paul states that we are NOT to go before the courts of the unbelievers to settle our disputes:

"3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?" ~ Paul, I Corinthians 6:3-7 (ESV)

With this in mind… it DOES interfere with our faith and practice as it relates to marriage. Quakers have often refused to file for marriage licenses with the state for some of the very same reasons. Are they wrong???


I wouldn't want to die and find out I was living in adultery for 40+ years because God didn't recognize my marriage. I don't know, just seems like as christians we put to much on the line because we are willing to reason why some things are ok to do and why some things aren't.
I know from also nearly doing this type of marriage I felt convicted about it after awhile. It seemed like God was bonking on the head with the bible.

As stated in a previous post… are we to believe that Quakers having married without a marriage license are living in Adultery???
 
Upvote 0

Stealth001

Seeker
Sep 8, 2011
546
15
✟23,292.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Anyhow, I'm all in favour of a 'religious' marriage, as long as you, your spouse, family and congregation bless it.

In some Christian communities these sorts of things are a scam people perpetrate to get someone to sleep with them. Of course I have no doubt the two of you are sincere, but arrangements such as these require more discipline since the law offers no official protection to either party (depending on country of course - my country does consider common-law couples the same as married couples).


We plan on filing for Domestic Partner benefits since it is legal in our region and confers many of the same rights as marriage. In addition, we plan on setablishing a co-habitation agreement which functions much like a marriage contract, with terms on how to divide things should we split up.

Since w'ere already living together... we're not just wanting this for sex. We honestly want to wear wedding bands and be spiritually committed in the eyes of God, friends, and family. We just don't want the red tape and fees with regards to all the legalities that civil marriage might bring.
 
Upvote 0

CounselorForChrist

Senior Veteran
Aug 24, 2010
6,576
237
✟23,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think you’re not considered a few things. First, the laws of civil marriage DO interfere with our lives as Christians. First, the grounds for divorce per civil marriage are unbiblical. In addition, to dissolve a civil marriage (divorce) one must follow family court law. Family court law isn’t always friendly towards devout Christian parents. It’s laws are not based on Christianity. And… Paul states that we are NOT to go before the courts of the unbelievers to settle our disputes:
Sounds more like legalism to find loopholes in order to ignore God commandments. Many people choose to find ways around something so they can justify what they do. Just because their are divorce laws doesn't mean it interferes with being a christian. Thats more of a "what if" scenario.

In that case I should never marry because in general I could be cheated on, liked to, abused...etc.

As stated in a previous post… are we to believe that Quakers having married without a marriage license are living in Adultery???
Not sure what the laws were then, but I know what they are now. However there are always places/times when the government doesn't acre. Such as in very tribal places of africa. You just get married, no government involved.
 
Upvote 0

Stealth001

Seeker
Sep 8, 2011
546
15
✟23,292.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Sounds more like legalism to find loopholes in order to ignore God commandments. Many people choose to find ways around something so they can justify what they do. Just because their are divorce laws doesn't mean it interferes with being a christian. Thats more of a "what if" scenario.

The point is, we are not to go before the courts of the unbelievers. For many, such as Quakers, this verse is very important. For others, they don't really think about it.

In that case I should never marry because in general I could be cheated on, liked to, abused...etc.

Marry God's way.

Not sure what the laws were then, but I know what they are now. However there are always places/times when the government doesn't acre. Such as in very tribal places of africa. You just get married, no government involved.

Then you'd know that many Quakers still do this. Pennsylvania had such a problem with Quakers refusing to file their marriages legally that they had to offer a "Self-Officiated" marriage certificate. Colorado has "Self-Officiation" laws on the books also. Yet, still many devout Quakers shy from from registering their marriages with the states.
 
Upvote 0

CounselorForChrist

Senior Veteran
Aug 24, 2010
6,576
237
✟23,292.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
^what she said^

Also that link you provided seems like its a site that twists scripture to fit its needs. If we aren't to serve two masters, then why does God say render to ceasers what is ceasers? And why does he say to obey mans laws unless it interferes with Gods laws? It would mean there are to conflicting scriptures.... which obviously they are not.

In the end we have free will and are accountable to God for what we choose to do. Do people want to risk their marriage being invalid in God eyes? I certainly don't. In my fiances country the only form of marriage is by getting a special certificate that lets you marry. Then after it gets filed at her embassy to show we are legally married.

As stated I think Mrs. Luther nailed why most people probably find a way to avoid legal marriage. Divorce will always be a fear for some BUT... if you truly trust God then you get married and do not worry about what "could" happen. We are not to live in fear of anything.
 
Upvote 0

Stealth001

Seeker
Sep 8, 2011
546
15
✟23,292.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
The impression that I get is that you don't want to be legally married because you're afraid of divorcing again.


I won't beat around the bush on that one... I think the family court system is a sham. I also think that attorneys goad couples into more brutal fights than they'd ordinarily have, just to rake in the cash on fees. The guidelines of the court are NOT Christian and often DON'T favor the believing spouse. I was having deep depression, fear, financial duress, and suicidal thoughts.

As a person who believes in being "wise"... never again... if I can help it. Me and my mate can set our own terms of separation should our union dissolve. Privately.
 
Upvote 0

Stealth001

Seeker
Sep 8, 2011
546
15
✟23,292.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
^what she said^

Also that link you provided seems like its a site that twists scripture to fit its needs. If we aren't to serve two masters, then why does God say render to ceasers what is ceasers? And why does he say to obey mans laws unless it interferes with Gods laws? It would mean there are to conflicting scriptures.... which obviously they are not.
In the end we have free will and are accountable to God for what we choose to do. Do people want to risk their marriage being invalid in God eyes? I certainly don't. In my fiances country the only form of marriage is by getting a special certificate that lets you marry. Then after it gets filed at her embassy to show we are legally married.

As stated I think Mrs. Luther nailed why most people probably find a way to avoid legal marriage. Divorce will always be a fear for some BUT... if you truly trust God then you get married and do not worry about what "could" happen. We are not to live in fear of anything.

I don't remember you answering the question I had regarding the Quakers. If you want to look up many Quaker marriage records... you have to check with the Quakers... because they didn't register their marriages with the state. Are they just "shaking up" because they didn't want the government regulating their private associations???

Don't you see... many devout believers DON'T want the GOVERNMENT meddling in their private associations. Marriage should be a private contract. It shouldn't be a GOVERNMENT monopoly. George Washington didn't have a marriage license. Nor did Abraham Lincolin. Common Law marriage laws were passed to give the government the grounds to recognize private marriages should either party wish to take things to civil court. Beyond that... couples often resolved things privately.

I look at it like this... the institution of marriage has been ruined by government. The courts have made it a high stakes gamble that isn't worth it. The government nearly offers incentive to divorce with "no fault divorce law" (UNBIBLICAL, something that goes against God) and extortion in the form of "Spousal Support" (often for the offending spouse), etc. Anyone who has faced a terrible divorce, and has any common sense, will not subject themselves or anyone else to this heathen court system.

Paul himself states:

1 Corinthians 6

English Standard Version (ESV)

Lawsuits Against Believers

6 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers![a]

So, why should I enter a contract that would FORCE me and my mate to be subject to the courts of the unbelievers?

In addition, the GOVERNMENT program called marriage today is about to recognize gay marriage. Why do I want my marriage associated with that system???

I say, as a Christian, Christians have grounds to do as the Quakers... take marriage back. Re-establish marriage as a private contract that is entered privately and ended privately if necessary.

Here's an example Christian Marriage Contract:

======================================

Christian Marriage Contract​

I. The Authority
In the Name of God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, we, _____________________ and ______________________ , hereby, before these witnesses, are joined in holy matrimony, as God intended in Genesis 2: 21-25, from this day forward until death.

The sole authority in and for this marriage shall be the Almighty God as revealed in the Holy Bible. His words shall be final Authority in every decision and/or dispute.
II. The parties
_______________________ is a man of sound mind and character, and of lawful age, attesting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the preeminence of the Word of God.

_______________________ is a woman of sound mind and character, and of lawful age, attesting to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the preeminence of the Word of God.
III. The Benefits
Both of the parties shall have the usual and customary duties of marriage including, but not limited to, the following:
Mutual sexual congress
It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain suitable standards of hygiene.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to meet one another’s sexual needs both physical and emotional in a spirit of love, openness, and respect.
Mutual society
It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain open communication for the benefit of the home.
It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain a peaceful home environment.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain respect for one another’s personal property, papers, and effects.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain appropriate respect for one another’s family.
Mutual rearing of children
It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain acceptable parenting standards with regards to the children.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to employ reasonable levels of disciple with regards to the children.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain suitable standards of hygiene with regards to the children.

It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain suitable standards with regards to the education of the children.
Mutual support, including, but not limited to:
Financial: It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain suitable levels of income to sustain the home.


Moral: It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to maintain suitable standards of moral character.


Spiritual: It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to respect and encourage one another’s spiritual development and needs.


Domestic: It is specifically agreed that each party will endeavor to assist with chores and the maintenance of the home. An addendum with regards to the suitable division of household chores/duties may be added to this contract as agreed upon at a later date.
IV. The Prohibitions
The following activities or behaviors shall be considered violations of the marriage contract:
Adultery:
Adultery is defined as any sexual activity or conduct with any person or persons not a party to this agreement.
Abandonment:
Abandonment shall be defined as either the filing in state court of any instrument seeking either legal separation or legal dissolution of the marriage, or desertion from the marital home for a period of no less than six months - whether support is paid by the deserting party or not.
Assault against a party or child of this marriage:
Assault is defined to be injurious or potentially injurious unwanted physical contact. A child of this marriage shall include any child of either party who is living with the parties and any adopted child.
Criminal behavior:
Criminal behavior shall be defined as one party’s willful and ongoing activities in violation of law such as would subject that party and/or the household to criminal sanctions and incarceration.
Dangerous behavior:
Dangerous behavior shall be defined as one party’s willful participation in behavior that has not been agreed upon by both parties that subjects the other party and/or the household to physical danger.
Ejection:
Ejection shall be defined as one party’s ejection of the other party.

Ejection is the removal of the other person from the marital home.

Ejection need not be by force to be prohibited by this agreement.

Ejection may be demonstrated by removal of the other party’s personal property from the marital home, the changing of the locks, or the mere demand by one party that the other party leave the marital home.
Habitual drunkenness or drug intoxication:
Habitual drunkenness or drug intoxication, whether criminal or not, is prohibited. Habitual drunkenness or drug intoxication shall be deemed to include a party’s being under the influence of alcohol or drugs to a noticeable or perceptible degree more often than ___ days per month.
Illness:
It is specifically agreed upon and understood that becoming physically or mentally ill is not prohibited conduct. The other party’s becoming physically or mentally ill is not, in itself, prohibited by this contract and cannot be the basis for seeking a remedy under this contract.
Misfortune:
It is specifically agreed and understood that becoming financially poor is not prohibited conduct.
V. To Whom Appeal is Made
The first appeal, when one party believes the other party has violated the prohibitions above, shall be in accordance with Matthew 18: 15-18, that is, the offended party shall take the matter to the accused party.

If no resolution results from the first appeal, may demand physical separation from the accused party. See “The remedies” below.

If no resolution results from the first appeal, the offended party shall take the matter to the accused party with two or three impartial witnesses.

If no resolution results, the offended party shall call for the church or family counselor to judge and counsel concerning the matter.

The proceedings of the church or family counselor shall be recorded to whatever extent possible.

The standard of proof shall be preponderance of the evidence.

If a party is found to be at fault, the church or family counselor shall render a decision concerning separation and/or divorce and concerning suggested financial restitution.

All decisions of the church or family counselor shall be binding upon the parties for permanent separation or divorce.
VI. The Remedies
Resolution and reconciliation:
Resolution and reconciliation shall be defined as counsel from godly ministers who are of sound mind and character and believers in the Word of God in attempt to resolve circumstances and issues related to any violation of the above prohibitions.
Separation:
Separation shall be defined as the leaving of or removal of one party at the demand of another party based upon allegation(s) of violation(s) of the contractual prohibitions above. Where physical separation is initiated, the accused party shall leave the domicile, especially where children are part of the household. Physical custody of any children shall remain with the respective parents. The separation demanded, unless otherwise agreed upon or ordered, shall last no longer than 90 days unless the allegation(s) are verified by preponderance of the evidence before the church, family counselor, or state court of law. Resolution and reconciliation may proceed by mutual agreement. Upon a showing that the allegation(s) of contractual prohibitions are true, either by the church, family counselor, or a state court, the separation will be deemed permanent, subject to future consideration, resolution, and reconciliation initiated by the parties involved.
Divorce:
Divorce shall be defined as the complete dissolution of this marriage contract and may only be sought by a party claiming and showing a violation of the contractual provisions against adultery or abandonment. Initial separation shall follow the procedure above. After a hearing of the matter before the church, family counselor, or state court, the prevailing party may, if a state marriage license has been obtained, file for a civil dissolution in state court.
VII. Witnesses and abuse of process

If the church or family counselor determines by clear and convincing evidence that a party has been untruthful or has induced a witness to be untruthful in any proceeding before the church or family counselor, said party shall be deemed guilty of abandonment.

If the church or family counselor deems that a party has repeatedly engaged the process without just cause, that party shall be deemed guilty of abandonment. For purposes of this paragraph, “repeatedly” shall be no fewer than three times.

It is acknowledged by all parties involved that this contract expresses a purely spiritual agreement and is sovereign with relation to all civil legalities.
The undersigned parties do hereby agree to the terms of this contract:


___________________________
Husband


_________________________
Wife


The undersigned do hereby witness the agreement of the parties:


___________________________
Witness
 
Upvote 0

Stealth001

Seeker
Sep 8, 2011
546
15
✟23,292.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
I also have a problem with the notion of a "Marriage License". A license is express permission from an authorized STATE authority to do that which would otherwise be illegal. Originally "Marriage Licenses" were issued to interracial couples because interracial marriage was illegal. A generation late they decided to require all couples to get "Marriage Licenses". Here's the problem with that... in one fell swoop the government essentially made marriage itself illegal. And thus now... only the GOVERNMENT can allow you to marry. Problem is... it's managed by the states and individual states have differing standards regarding marriage. So we have a convoluted mess. One state has Common Law Marriage... another state doesn't. One state has Self-Officiated marriages... another state doesn't. One state has gay marriage... another state doesn't. The GOVERNMENT is making a mess and a mockery of it. Now, with the gay marriage debate... the government wants to standardize marriage across the country. A full scale government take over of this private institution.

Don't you guys see this???

Marriage is a "natural right"... meaning people have had the right to marry of their own free will since before governments, religions, churches, priests, clergy, etc. Historically... it's always been a private contract.

We wonder why marriage is a wreck in our country??? Well... we've allowed it to become "Socialized Marriage". The GOVERNMENT virtually destroys anything it touches with it's regulations and re-definitions.

Don't you realize... if GOVERNMENT didn't hijack marriage... we'd not have "no fault" divorce in our country??? If a divorce was taken to any court in the land, a Christians marriage contract would require grounds for divorce.

So... I can see where pastors like Pastor Trewhella are coming from,
What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, “If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married.” Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, “If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license—who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license?” In reality, this contention that one is not really married unless they obtain a marriage license just reveals how Statist we have become in our thinking. We need to think biblically.

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as a legally binding document in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriage in their Family Bibles. So should we.

Pastor Trewhella
Mercy Seat Christian Church
10240 W. National Ave. PMB #129
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

What if they one day started requiring parents to have and maintain a "Parenting License" to have, and to keep, their children???

It's overreaching state power. We should take marriage back. Privatize Marriage again.

 
Upvote 0

ValleyGal

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2012
5,775
1,830
✟121,755.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Female
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Divorced
It seems you don't want to legally marry because you don't want to end up in front of the courts of unbelievers. IOW, it sounds like you expect your "marriage" to fail. But here's the thing. There is nothing stopping her from suing you in legal courts if you break up even if you don't have a "legal" marriage. You could live with her for five years common law, and she could sue you for half of the "marital" assets anyway.

And I think you are taking the "court of unbelievers" passage out of context. If both parties are living the love of God, there should be no need for divorce or courts. Sometimes it might take a mediator to settle whose values need to take precedence in a certain situation, but when people are loving selflessly and sacrificially, there should be no need for courts. Unfortunately, even believers can have a deep clash of legitimate values, and even mediators can't sort out whose should take precedence, or both are unwilling to give up their values for the sake of the other. That is when court is needed.

There have been times in history when it was necessary for people to either wait until the preacher rode into town once a year or whatever, but those were cultural concessions...and believers chose to wait rather than live together until they could marry. Even in biblical times, it was a public, contractual issue. In early OT times, the fathers of the bride and groom would seal the contract (covenant) by walking the blood path of certain animals they killed for the purpose. Marriage was a legal issue even back then.

You have been living together out of wedlock. This is called fornication (sex prior to marriage). You say you have been blessed, but just because things are going well now, that does not mean it is God's blessing or favour on your sin. However, it seems that no matter what anyone says, you are adamant about what you believe, so all anyone here can do is wish you well.
 
Upvote 0

Stealth001

Seeker
Sep 8, 2011
546
15
✟23,292.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
It seems you don't want to legally marry because you don't want to end up in front of the courts of unbelievers. IOW, it sounds like you expect your "marriage" to fail. But here's the thing. There is nothing stopping her from suing you in legal courts if you break up even if you don't have a "legal" marriage. You could live with her for five years common law, and she could sue you for half of the "marital" assets anyway.

I don't think you get it. Have you experienced a divorce?

And I think you are taking the "court of unbelievers" passage out of context.

Paul doesn't want Christians taking legal issues before unbelieving courts. Paul expressly voices that we should have wise individuals among us who can settle our disputes privately within the community of believers.

If both parties are living the love of God, there should be no need for divorce or courts. Sometimes it might take a mediator to settle whose values need to take precedence in a certain situation, but when people are loving selflessly and sacrificially, there should be no need for courts. Unfortunately, even believers can have a deep clash of legitimate values, and even mediators can't sort out whose should take precedence, or both are unwilling to give up their values for the sake of the other. That is when court is needed.

I agree. And because I agree I guess that will protect me if my marriage fails and attorneys start to ratchet up more drama with God knows what kind of accusation. My ex threw tons of false accusations that I had to fight and clear. It was Hell on earth. I think you have stars in your eyes.


There have been times in history when it was necessary for people to either wait until the preacher rode into town once a year or whatever, but those were cultural concessions...and believers chose to wait rather than live together until they could marry. Even in biblical times, it was a public, contractual issue. In early OT times, the fathers of the bride and groom would seal the contract (covenant) by walking the blood path of certain animals they killed for the purpose. Marriage was a legal issue even back then.

Actually, you're not up on your history. With everything you posted, please note... it was a private contract. Government didn't LICENSE you to marry. You could draft a private contract, have one provided by the church, or have one drafted by family in the event of arranged marriage. Yes, if a couple couldn't come to an agreement upon divorce they could take it to the court. However, it wasn't a necessity. The marriage could also be dissolved privately. For example, George Washington and his wife merely signed their names in the front page of their family Bible. Same with Abraham Lincoln. Same with many very conservative churches that don't want to be entangled in the system. And yes... even Quakers refused to register their marriages with the state. They kept their own records. Marriage was a PRIVATE contract.


You have been living together out of wedlock. This is called fornication (sex prior to marriage). You say you have been blessed, but just because things are going well now, that does not mean it is God's blessing or favour on your sin. However, it seems that no matter what anyone says, you are adamant about what you believe, so all anyone here can do is wish you well.

Marriage was around long before the government. And it will be around long after governments topple and new governments arise. I don't look to the state to define marriage. Many religious groups and individuals have private weddings and private marriages. To accuse one of "fornication" because they don't believe in this world's system isn't very thoughtful or considerate.

Here's a dictionary entry:
fornication (n)
c.1300, from Old French fornicacion (12c.), from Late Latin fornicationem (nom. fornicatio), noun of action from pp. stem of fornicari "fornicate," from Latin fornix (genitive fornicis) "brothel" (Juvenal, Horace), originally "arch, vaulted chamber" (Roman prostitutes commonly solicited from under the arches of certain buildings), from fornus "oven of arched or domed shape."
Fornication is whoredom, prostitution. The penalty was death. However, in Exodus 22:16-17, a couple who sleeps together were not sentenced to death. They were to marry and the man had to pay the bride price. No death sentence. So, there is a difference. And if we indeed are living "out of wedlock" it is because wedlock is not granted to us. We refuse to allow the GOVERNMENT to define marriage for us. Right now, the very same GOVERNMENT is granting the GOVERNMENT PROGRAM they call marriage to gay couples. We don't want to be a part of that system. You can if you like. However, God calls us to "come out of her my people".

Also, we are both strong Libertarians. We see marriage as a common right (natural right). Please note the following on what this means. Here is the holding from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Meister vs. Moore, 96 US 76 (1877):
“As before remarked, the statutes are held merely directory; because marriage is a thing of common right. . . ” [emphasis added]
Directory – A provision in a statute, rule of procedure, or the like, which is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be followed. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

The statutes to which the Court was referring were statutes in Massachusetts and Michigan that purported to render invalid marriages not entered into under the term of written [statutory] state law. While the various state courts have prattled on for almost 200 years about what the laws of their states do and do not allow concerning marriage, the US Supreme Court cut straight to the heart of the issue in declaring that statutes controlling marriage can only be directory because marriage is a common right, which is not subject to interference or regulation by government.

Phrased another way, the God-given right to marry existed prior to the creation of the states or the national government, and therefore it is beyond their purview to alter, modify, abolish, or interfere with, such a right.

You honestly believe in allowing the GOVERNMENT to take a way and regulate a God given natural right???

Next... they'll want to license you to have and keep your children. Will you march alone with the GOVERNMENT then too??? You see... we can have a private marriage and indeed be married. And there will be no penalties come our way, because licensing and legal recognition is "merely directory". That's why they don't arrest people who live together... even if they call one another "husband" and "wife". Now, if I want to collect benefits from the government predicated upon being married... of course I'd have to have a marriage the government recognized. There is a different between something not being "recognized" and something not being "real" or "legal".

We want a private contract. A private wedding. A private marriage.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Stealth001

Seeker
Sep 8, 2011
546
15
✟23,292.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
If Christians truly want to "save marriage"... take it back. Bring it back to the private sphere. Allow it to be governed by the individuals in said union and their faith in the Bible.

A Pastor Explains Why You Should Not Get A Marriage License
A Pastor Explains Why You Should Not Get A Marriage License
 
Upvote 0

ValleyGal

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2012
5,775
1,830
✟121,755.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Female
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Divorced
I don't think you get it. Have you experienced a divorce?

Yes, more than one.

Paul doesn't want Christians taking legal issues before unbelieving courts. Paul expressly voices that we should have wise individuals among us who can settle our disputes privately within the community of believers.

Paul was encouraging us to settle matters in the spirit of Christian love. It is not an absolute command to avoid all courts. Would you not want a Christian brother criminally prosecuted if they assaulted you or stole from you? We need the legal justice and correction systems. In context, though, we should follow the biblical format: if your brother sins against you, go to them privately. If they don't listen, take a witness. If they still don't listen, go before church authority. If they still don't listen, treat them like an unbeliever (and this means you can take them to court).

As for the whole fornication discussion, you might want to never mind a French dictionary from the 1300's and look at the Bible in context of language in biblical era. Look up the Greek "porneia" and do some cross referencing with OT and NT laws and principles. Sex outside legal marriage is sin. ANY sex outside legal marriage is sin.

If you would like to go and live among the Quakers, that is your business. We are told as believers to live in the world, not of it. Being in the world includes submitting to government authorities, which the Bible tells me that God put into place. The government has not taken away the right to marry. I think the government is keeping track to enforce other applicable law, like the law against polygamy.

And FTR, having been a social worker in child welfare, I would love to see families regulated in that anyone who has children should be mandated to attend parenting courses. Maybe that would cut down the need for child protection social workers.
 
Upvote 0

Stealth001

Seeker
Sep 8, 2011
546
15
✟23,292.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, more than one.



Paul was encouraging us to settle matters in the spirit of Christian love. It is not an absolute command to avoid all courts. Would you not want a Christian brother criminally prosecuted if they assaulted you or stole from you? We need the legal justice and correction systems. In context, though, we should follow the biblical format: if your brother sins against you, go to them privately. If they don't listen, take a witness. If they still don't listen, go before church authority. If they still don't listen, treat them like an unbeliever (and this means you can take them to court).

As for the whole fornication discussion, you might want to never mind a French dictionary from the 1300's and look at the Bible in context of language in biblical era. Look up the Greek "porneia" and do some cross referencing with OT and NT laws and principles. Sex outside legal marriage is sin. ANY sex outside legal marriage is sin.

If you would like to go and live among the Quakers, that is your business. We are told as believers to live in the world, not of it. Being in the world includes submitting to government authorities, which the Bible tells me that God put into place. The government has not taken away the right to marry. I think the government is keeping track to enforce other applicable law, like the law against polygamy.

And FTR, having been a social worker in child welfare, I would love to see families regulated in that anyone who has children should be mandated to attend parenting courses. Maybe that would cut down the need for child protection social workers.

Well... praise the state...

Statists are taking over everything. It's communism. If you want to save marriage... allow couples to establish private contracts. That way, they can settle disputes or dissolutions of their unions privately and only take it to court if either party breaches contract.

I'm Libertarian. Give me liberty.
 
Upvote 0

Stealth001

Seeker
Sep 8, 2011
546
15
✟23,292.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, more than one.



Paul was encouraging us to settle matters in the spirit of Christian love. It is not an absolute command to avoid all courts. Would you not want a Christian brother criminally prosecuted if they assaulted you or stole from you? We need the legal justice and correction systems. In context, though, we should follow the biblical format: if your brother sins against you, go to them privately. If they don't listen, take a witness. If they still don't listen, go before church authority. If they still don't listen, treat them like an unbeliever (and this means you can take them to court).

As for the whole fornication discussion, you might want to never mind a French dictionary from the 1300's and look at the Bible in context of language in biblical era. Look up the Greek "porneia" and do some cross referencing with OT and NT laws and principles. Sex outside legal marriage is sin. ANY sex outside legal marriage is sin.

If you would like to go and live among the Quakers, that is your business. We are told as believers to live in the world, not of it. Being in the world includes submitting to government authorities, which the Bible tells me that God put into place. The government has not taken away the right to marry. I think the government is keeping track to enforce other applicable law, like the law against polygamy.

And FTR, having been a social worker in child welfare, I would love to see families regulated in that anyone who has children should be mandated to attend parenting courses. Maybe that would cut down the need for child protection social workers.

As for "porneia"... it covers numerous sexual sins including adultery. It's not specific merely to a couple living together in accordance to a private marriage contract.
 
Upvote 0