What constitutes "marriage"?

yeah I must have asked about four times by now.

 

Gina wrote

Gina how old are you again? are you that lame, that you cannot see what i knew it was about? Duhhhh

 

Yes, but right now I'd rather hear from her re my 2 questions, one of which I've asked 3 times.

What civil law did Jesus break?

What hate speech laws have I violated?

I will repost my posts on these questions tomorrow if I don't get an answer. </font>[/QUOTE]Marcia, if you don't give me time to answer you, I will no longer be in this discussion with you.
If you'd like to have a conversation, that's great. However, you'll need to use common sense and read what I say, and understand that I don't always have an immediate answer, before we continue.

Is it a deal or not?

 

Gina, usually people have a quick answer for things they feel strong about and believe. at least i know i do. otherwise i am making things up, pulling straws out of a hat, grasping for truths, not sure of why i believe what i believe, i heard it from someone without studying it out for myself.

You know making it up as i go along!

By the way isn't calling people NAMES like a TROLL violating board rules? or are some people above that?

 

Karen: My simple answer is that marriage is a civil contract.

Gina: We disagree on that. That means that we're really not going to accomplish much more with each other than stating our opinions, although that's fine. It's always good to know what other people believe.

Karen: God established the family, church, and civil government. For the Christian, marriage is overlaid with the truth that it is a picture of Christ and the Church.

Gina: I don't know that I agree with the idea that God established civil government. Did he not oppose the very idea of government, and only put a leader in to satisfy a human sin nature, and we've paid the price ever since? Was it not to enforce biblical laws, not to make extraneous laws?

Karen: But it is still a civil contract for the good of society. One of the prime reasons for such a contract is the welfare of the children it produces.

Gina: I believe that for a while yes, making it a civil contract was good. I don't beieve that is the case any longer.

Karen: Since I believe you identify yourself as a Calvinist,I will note that my above definition was held by the Puritans and is, I believe, a typical Calvinist view of marriage.

Gina: I wasn't aware that there was a Calvinistic view of marriage. To be honest, the idea strikes me as kind of humorous! I'll check into it as a matter of interest, and thanks for bringing it into the conversation! However, whether or not it is a calvi idea or not really has no bearing on how I view it. I like to at least *think* that the bible and common sense come first, and other things that just happen to agree with stuff from named groups just happens to agree!

 

Yes, but right now I'd rather hear from her re my 2 questions, one of which I've asked 3 times.

What civil law did Jesus break?

What hate speech laws have I violated?

I will repost my posts on these questions tomorrow if I don't get an answer. </font>[/QUOTE]Marcia, if you don't give me time to answer you, I will no longer be in this discussion with you.
If you'd like to have a conversation, that's great. However, you'll need to use common sense and read what I say, and understand that I don't always have an immediate answer, before we continue.

Is it a deal or not? </font>[/QUOTE]Gina, why would you so boldly claim Jesus violated civil/public laws and then need time to give an example? Anyone would assume you would have one right away.

Same on the hate speech. I've been reading on such laws in Canada and another country and that is why I know we don't have one in the U.S. In fact, a court recently cleared Harvest House and John Ankerberg ministries in a lawsuit bought by a litiguous cult against them for calling them a cult. The court ruled that when one is speaking according to one's beliefs, they can call another religion a cult.

But if you want time, sure, it's a deal.

 

Yes there is. As a preacher, when I perform a wedding, I am required by law to file the proper forms. If I fail to that, I am in violation of the law. It's not an unjust law, so I have no right to ignore it and break it.

Also, just exactly which laws of the Pharisees did he break?

 

I thought Pastors had to file papers from weddings to make it legal.
Gina, after reading this thread I'm amazed. lol I'm just not seeing your view on this mesh together right. I've tried though.
I think alot of people brought up great points, like Marcia and I can't remember who else now.

 

Well said. Right! </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you. Same to ya on your post on page three.

 

Frenchy, Marcia. Chill.

I think I understand what Gina is saying. If she's thinkin' what I think she's thinkin', then she's thinkin' a good thought.

Her basic premise is that man is not the author of marriage. I know several couples who have entered into a common law union. (This is not cohabitation, BTW.) They had ceremonies and exchanged vows in the presence of witnesses. They simply didn't ask the State for permission.

I think they were a bit misguided in how they worked it out, but their basic premises were admirable. Like I said, the state has a vested interest in governing, that is in protecting, the institution of marriage. When a state passes a law against polygamy or homosexual unions, they are doing just what God ordained governments to do, and we, as Christians, should cooperate with them and not scorn them.

Common law marriages are valid and protected in many states. The state I live in, however, does not recognize common law marriage and will imprison or fine anyone who solemnizes a marriage between parties who haven't received a marriage license from the state. Yeah, it's the preacher that goes to jail, not the man or woman.

 

As to the "laws of the land" being broken.....the Romans allowed the Jewish people a certain amount of self-rule. Thus, the Pharisaical laws WERE the laws of the land for Jesus and His disciples. Jesus healed on the Sabbath which, according to the Pharisees was a violation of their law. Please remember, when Gina first cited this instance she specifically said that Jesus did things that could have been SEEN AS breaking those laws. Some of you are getting a little too rough here with her, imo.

Frenchy, she DID tell you what her definition of adultery and fornication are, you either didn't see that post or you didn't like what it said.

Come on, give a gal a break.

 

Aaron, thanks for the info.

I did not realize that a preacher could be punished for marrying a man and woman without the permission of the courts. That does explain why I was asked not to publically speak about a certain pastor in another town who was doing it. I'm a little slow...I just assumed that as one of the few who did, he was pretty busy and didn't want to have to sort through everyone, as he always made sure it was those doing it for pure reasons, not attempts to have multiple spouses or evade the law for some reason!
I wonder if that's the law everywhere.
A government-free marriage could still take place without that though, so as not to endanger the preacher.
It's sad if this is truly the case. I'll have to look into that!
Ok, looking it up now, it doesn't appear that it must happen. It must happen in order for the marriage to be recognized by the state. I would assume these laws are in place to prevent people from assuming they are married in the eyes of the law when they are not. I can't see this happening in a couple who is purposely taking it upon themselves to NOT involve the government. They know what they're doing and why.
If gays can get around it by having unions performed, so can Christians. And...that isn't illegal. It means nothing to the courts, but it isn't illegal.

Marcia, I will still attempt to find specific law for you. However, it is fairly easy to find if you're very interested. I simply don't know where the codes are, and believe my friend does and has it saved on his computer, as he was looking it up with the intent of using it to point out how certain actions by the Red Cross discriminate against gays. The laws fall under those of harassment, infliction of emotional distress, etc.. For example, when a man stood outside my window and called my 9 yr. od child a ***re and preceded it with a derogatory name for Asians because he was a racist, I called the police and tried to press assault charges based on racial intimidation, harassment, and for causing our family intentional emotional distress.

Could I do that? Sure. I didn't push the issue because I lived in a racist town where they weren't too hot on Asians. They refused to let me file the report, which is in and of itself wrong. I could have pushed it, but I was moving.

However, it was still the law. The same ideology applies to what you say to a gay person. Loopholes are there, you can preface it with "I think that...", but to make such statements as "Asians are ***res", or "gays are going to hell", sets you up for a winnable lawsuit.

As I said, I will try to have the references to the exact laws, and some examples of case law, by Friday. If you find it yourself before then, let me know and save me the effort, if ya find it in your heart!

 

I believe that God did establish civil government. See Romans. God, in my opinion, did not oppose government. He set up a theocracy in Israel with Himself as King. When the people asked for a king, God said that they were rejecting Him as King. He did give them what they wanted. But it does not show that He is in opposition to government.

Karen

 

The confusion arises because there are two forms of marriage, usually concurrent, but not always.

First, there is the religious marriage, the commitment before God, recognized by whatever religious sect is involved.

Then there is the civil contract, recognized by the state, province or other governmental jurisdiction.

These are not necessarily one and the same, e.g. the Roman Catholic Church may not recognized a remarriage by a divorced person, but yet it is legal and recognized by civil authorities.

In my state, you don't need an official of any church or state, you can marry yourself. You just have to file the papers. Or if you don't want to do that, this state also recognized common law declarations of marriage as legitimate. Common law marriages are not "shacking up", as one has to get a legal divorce to dissolve them.

 

Yes Karen, but I am not advocating opposition or disobedience to the government. I do not see where a commitment to another person with God as the witness, without the approval of the government, breaks any established laws.

I do believe that civil disobedience has a time and place. Specifically, when the government puts in laws that violate scripture. This is part of why I feel that the government's involvement in marriage doesn't mean much spiritually, for they allow marriage between a believer and unbeliever, they allow divorce for non-biblical reasons, and they are headed toward redefining marriage and granting civil marital rights to homosexuals. I do believe that eventually, if the current trend continues, it may even become wrong for a Christian couple to be married civilly, for what does that tell others, when you recognize the authority and power of evil doers in your personal life, especially in something as clearly God-ordained as a marriage?

I do not expect people to agree with me. I have found over the years that my view on this topic is certainly not a majority view. I've tried to logically follow through on both civil unions and non-civil unions, and neither end up in a logical place though. I currently hold that both are ok. I currently hold that most likely, being united both religiously and civilly is best. I currently hold that one does not have to be united civilly for a marriage to have occurred.

It's a repeat of what I've said, so that's pretty much all I have to say. I beieve I've explained why I believe this as much as I can. I normally don't have conversations about it and being thus, I've not sat and hammered out my every thought on it, so I apologize if there are things I cannot fully explain about my position to your satisfaction.

One thing I want to make very clear: I am not condoning young couples running off and living together without the knowledge of their families and other people, in an attempt to live in a marriage they know their family doesn't approve of. Be open, be honest. If one has true convictions about involving the government in a marriage, this can be talked about with family, and a home ceremony performed, but if it's truly an issue and will cause strife in the family, it's not an issue that's worth it at this point in time. Most people do NOT have strong convictions that say the government should not be involved in marriage.

Strive to keep peace. Strive to live as Christ would have us live. There is a difference between convictions and what you think is ok. What you think is ok doesn't always have to be what you have to do, and can even be wrong if you do it with the knowledge that it will cause strife. Conviction from the Holy Spirit is very very different than something being alright in and of itself.

If I were to remarry, which isn't happening anytime soon, and I chose not to involve the government, I would inform all of my family and friends of my intentions. I would seek their approval, make they understood my position, and involve them in whatever we decided would constitute our commitment, whether it was words spoken by a father (and ideally that would be the case) or a simple prayer between myself and my future husband. If it was really an issue for someone and would cause them to stumble, although I don't see how it would, I would seriously reconsider the method for their sake.

I just want to make sure that people know I am not condoning/advising/promoting couples going off and living together and using the lack of government involvement as an excuse and an okay for possibly unethical/unbiblical actions/lifestyles.

 

Without a legal marriage the wife and children may not be covered by the man's medical insurance, he has no legal right to his own children like making decisions, school or other education, medical decisions, and under the new medical privacy laws he can't even be told about his children's health unless their mother authorizes it first.
It's just a big unnecessary mess.
A legally recognized marriage comes with a marriage certificate, otherwise it isn't a legal marriage. At least not in our state it isn't. It's called shacking up.

 

No one would interpret the "laws of the land" this way. The law of the land was Roman law. We were discussing civil laws. I was not being rough on Gina. This is what she said:

I don't think Gina meant the Pharisees' rules or she would have been able to answer me right away, when I asked her what laws Jesus broke.

 

My take is the same as donnA's.

 

bapmom please show me where Gina gave a definition of adultry and fornication!

according to her if she was to "remarry" live with a man. according to God's law and the states she would NOT be married and she would committing fornication!

she would not receive the same status or benifits of a married woman. she can justify it any way she wants and so can the homosexuals for their stance for their "rights" to me she is saying what they are saying. for sin is sin is sin. fornication, adultry, homosexuality. ALL SIN!

i am surprised how many of you are not calling what Gina is saying SIN! if that were me saying that you all would be ALL over me in a heart beat! (i got pounced for correcting someones spelling) i see long standing on the board gives someone the right to opinions over truth and for calling other posters names.

 

I forgot to say that if you aren't actually married, then you can not make medical decisions for each other if one of you is not able to make their own decisions, and you can not legally give your child his last name without a legal marriage, people do it all the time but they have to lie to do it too.
One of the most important things is your witness, you are to look and be different then the world around you, the world sees nothing wrong with shacking up, when christians do it they don't look any different and to the unsaved have destroyed their witness, it is now worthless.
How can we possibly teach our children sex outside of marriage is wrong if we approve it ourselves? When we do nothing more then live together, we give approval to that kind of lifestyle.