Laws on Marriage/Family

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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).

 

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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

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.

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

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 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.

 

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

 

I triple amen that comment!

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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