Are you okay with common law marriage?

Again, you don't understand nor are you commenting/debating on the actaul issues at hand. Now who can't see? Continue on and you will note just what I am talking about.

No, this thread is about - Are you OK with common law marriage. This gives rise to the debate why or why not one is or is not Ok with it. Cohabitiation is part of the arguement to the OP's question.

I wish you would just deal the issues provided already instead.

This is not about whether common law marriages are legal but why one is or is not OK with them in the places where it is applicable.

And this would be one of those reasons some would not be for 'this type' of common law marriage.

There is a difference and distinction between these witnesses who are actually more character witnesses (stating they heard the couple say they were married), in contrast to marriage witnesses who testify to the 'fact' this couple was married before us. It is important to understand the difference and distinction, especially legally.

However, please provide my post where I made any accusation or insinuation of this type of common law marriage as being 'sinful'.

First, I have not said a marriage MUST or only be performed by a clery or civil officaint. However you will find historically this done in ancient Jewish weddings and even pagan ones.
With respect to ceremony then I would encourage you to read the scriptures some more. There are many I could lead you to and others in which I have already shown scripturally the imagery, but you might want to check out Jesus parable description of God the Father setting up His Son's wedding (Mat 22), The wedding of Cana, or The wedding found in Revelation. Remember that to marry, was to also be 'given in marriage' meaning someone having authority gave you over to be under the authority of another. Study up historically on ancient Jewish wedding, even pagan wedding and you will notably see it always being established by ceremnony. Marriage was an 'act' nor a statement or state of mind.

This illistrates my point perfectly, that you don't have a clue as to what the issues are that are being discussed. You judged, and have judged incorrectly because your judgment is based upon assumption and presumption of the issues.

 

I agree with you

 

My question is this - if a man and woman intend to "create the appearance of being married" why not just go to the courthouse or local church and take legal vows? It doesn't require a fancy ceremony. An officiate and eligible witnesses fulfill both legal and Scriptural obligations. Applying for a marriage license is simple and inexpensive. I suppose I have to disagree that simply stating intent is tantamount to making it official. Surely we would not be fine with a homosexual couple saying their intent is to be married, but the state won't legitimize their union, would we?

In most states that honor common law marriage (which there are about as few as states that honor same-sex "marriage") the couple must show proof of cohabitation to a court official when signing an affidavit of intent to have a common law marriage. The only way a couple can prove cohabitation is to either live together out of wedlock or file for change of address while still living at their old address.

Bottom line - most couples don't opt for a common law marriage. States used to issue a common law marriage status to couples who cohabitated a certain length of time, regardless of intent. I live down the road from a couple who are common law married. Georgia stopped honoring CLMs in 1997, but couples who were recognized prior to then were grandfathered in. They have four children together and simply became "married" by living together a number of years. He once said, "aw, heck, we don't need no stupid piece of paper to be married. It's easier this way."

Quite frankly, how non-christians are living isn't something I lose much sleep over. If they asked me, I'd share my views, but I cannot hold them to Biblical standards. The problem I'm seeing is that there are too many Christians wanting to know how far they can go before being in sin instead of striving for holiness. You have Christian teens wanting to know if certain intimate acts are okay, so long as they don't go "all the way". They want to know if living together, or sleeping overnight, are okay so long as no intercourse takes place. You have people degrading marriage by saying "oh, it's only a piece of paper" or living under the sinful delusion that simply having intercourse and intending to be husband and wife makes them married in God's eyes. This is a lie from the devil! What about people who have multiple partners, but later repent? Are they polygamists in God's eyes?

 

A license is permission from a governing body to do something that without such permission would be illegal to do.

A marriage license is just that, permission from the state to marry. It is permission, not merely a matter of certification. In other words, in states that require a marriage license there is a defacto prohibition on marriage. It is illegal to get married without getting permission from the state.

A marriage license is also a contract with the state that makes the state a third party to the marriage.

The couples I know announced their intent to marry, had a public ceremony, exchanged vows, signed documents, and went to live together. But they did not get a license for the sake of conscience, because they believe: 1) Prohibiting marriage is a doctrine of devils giving the state no right to deny it, and 2) They will not willingly sign a contract making the state a third party to their union.

You still equate common law marriage with mere cohabitation. How many times does someone have to say something before it begins to sink in? Common law marriage is not mere cohabitation.

 

There's a reason we are equating the two, but you seemed to have missed it. You are arguing about couples who have gone through everything but getting a license through their state; we are talking about those who are living together and thus declared "common law" by the state. Two totally different subjects.

Same here, brother.

 

From the OP:

I believe that what they are OK with is "married people living together".
Aren't you?

 

The commandment is to obey every ordinance of man. Marriage is a divine institution, and no Christian is to blindly obey any statute, especially in regard to divine institutions.

It's no more juvenile than avoiding eating establishments that serve alcoholic beverages, nor the illegal marriages performed by St. Valentine. It's a matter of conscience and one's service to Christ.

1) You're not their judge, and 2)They weren't "making a statement." They were getting married. What do you think? That the issue of common law marriage was expounded at the ceremony? In the wedding announcements? The only reason I know these weren't statutory marriages is because I am closely associated with these people.

No. Two of the couples I mentioned married in a state that won't recognize their marriage.

See Jerome's post above. Thanks, Jerome. That's why I asked her in my first post to define common law marriage before I respond to the poll. She doesn't really know what common law marriage is.

 

It's a matter of conscience. The state is not the author of marriage, and can only protect married couples. It cannot forbid it, which is what it is doing when it requires one to have its permission before they marry. The license also makes the state a third party to the marriage contract.

God also commands you to obey your parents. If you marry against your parents' wishes are you really married?

No, you don't. If you did, you wouldn't look to a state's statutes to study it. But I've told you this before, so I guess there's no more to say.

You're not their judge.

 

This is not true. It's power to enforce a contract and protect the parties thereof does not make itself a party to the contract. The marriage license, however, is a contract with the state. You should abstain from making up your own facts in an attempt to gain the high ground in an argument.

No, it's from you.

Where's that in the Scripture? You're argument was that the Scriptural admonition to obey the government is essential to the validity of a marriage. But you don't think that the Scriptural admonition to obey one's parents does the same thing? You really haven't thought this through, now yer reachin'.

Cheap shot. You brought a knife to a gunfight and are smarting for it. I endorse government protection of marriage, but when it says it's a third party to the union then the line is getting blurred somewhere. For the couples I know, it's a line that couldn't be crossed.

And you have obviously forgotten this thread: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=62527

 

I haven't read anything but the last page here, so I may be repeating some things.

I have to agree with Marcia here.
I would also add that I very much want some regulation of marriage.
If the state has no regulation of marriage, then it cannot forbid marriage however the individuals involved define it.
I think that in order to marry, there should be a minimum age, no coercion, and proof of identity.
In addition to marriage issues regarding homosexuality, I also don't want polygamous marriages. That would happen in Oklahoma without regulation by the state. I also don't want some 60 year old man marrying a 15 year old girl just because her crazed parents think it is a good idea.

Getting married legally protects the children born afterwards. People die. Some become disabled. They need to plan ahead and do what protects their children in inheritance issues. Men have the danger of the second boyfriend raising their children with precious little input from them.

 

Isaac took Rebekkah into his tent and consummated their relationship (Genesis 24:67). They began to live as husband and wife from that point onward. The Hebrew gives no hint of any formal ceremony, unless the act of consummation was ritualized somehow.

Do you think that was a "biblical marriage"?

 

Obviously it was a "biblical marriage". Didn't you read the other 66 verses in that chapter?