Are you okay with common law marriage?

And about the law of nature, which fallen man knows by nature.

All marriage is a matter of common law.

 

David and Solomon probably had casefuls of legal papers.
Solomon especially, since he married non-Jews for political/economic reasons.

I'm not for common-law marriage as strongly as I'm against divorce.
[SNIPPED - CRUDE LANGUAGE UNFIT FOR THE BB]

 

then multiple wives must be ok based on this same story from scripture. as you say, God called hagar abrahams wife and wrote it in scripture, it must have His approval.

 

Oh for cryin' out loud, Trotter you are usually a bit brighter than this. Paying someone for erotic favors is not the same as two people committing their lives to each other under the laws of their state.

Nothing except that pesky thing known as the law.

 

Here's what I see here. Despite the fact that has been pointed out clearly that some states require no cohabitation take place prior to establishing the common law marriage, some are so very afraid that somebody's x might touch somebody else's y without a few magic words and paying the state a fee, that they lose their common sense. This is really the crux of the issue.

 

Hmm. That gives me food for thought. Honestly, Tim, I don't know.

I do know that my brother lived with his girlfriend (now wife) for many years, long enough to be considered "common law" before they finally had a wedding ceremony. Their reason for shacking up was NOT to be married at first, because they didn't want to commit, they just wanted to live together in sin. It just so happened that they decided to "commit" and had the ceremony. So, I don't know. To me, it wasn't really a true marriage until they decided to prove their commitment, but in the eyes of the law I guess they were already married.

This is a tough one. I'm glad I'm not the pastor so I don't have to make the decision!

 

Absolutely right, and the common law agrees with your instinct.

Because no matter how long they cohabited,

If they
1) never agreed together to be married, and
2) were known to be "only living together"

they were not married under the common law.

Committing to be married is what creates the marriage.
Subsequent marital cohabitation (not just living together, but living together as husband and wife) is simply an evidence of that commitment.

 

What is "normally done" for a marriage is a matter of law and tradition. It doesn't invalidate other ways. Would you say a couple that writes their own vows have an invalid marriage since they didn't do what is "normally done"? That is a rather recent change itself.

As to "declaration before God", you don't need to pay the state a fee for a license to do that either.

 

That is merely your opinion.

It doesn't matter why. It is their marriage. Not mine. Not yours.

 

Someone said earlier either on this thread, or the other one something about "intent"... I think that is the key to understanding this.

If someones intent is to move in together to see if they are compatible before marriage.. or to avoid marriage, and divorce if things go bad.. that is shacking up...

If someones intent is to move in together to be married, and they claim they are married, he takes her as a wife, she takes him as a husband, and they do this in a common law state.. then it meets the requirements set by God in the beginning as a marriage.. they vow to each other and to God.. then that is good enough for a marriage in a common law state.

But as Marcia has pointed out.. this is very rare.. and for the most part, most are just shacking up to avoid the red tape... which is sin.

Lifelong commitment to one another is the basis for marriage.

Also, since we live in WV, then this really is a mute point.. anyone here living together without already being married (either here with a marriage license, or moved here and WV recognized it).. they are living in sin.

I would like to throw another kink into this... Our version of the marriage ceremony has pagan roots.. NOT from Judaism, but from Romanism.

So, does God recognize pagan marriages?
What about wiccan marriages?
What about Buddhist marriages?

What about tribal marriages deep in a jungle?

If a missionary starts a church, does everyone have to redo their marriage vows if they didn't get married by the Western custom of having a priest or preacher officiate or have a marriage license?

The more we become globalized, the more we are going to recognize that our cultural customs do not automatically equal Biblical customs.

Too many of us Americans have taken for granted that our way of interpreting the Bible in our culture, and in our customs is the only right way. When in fact, the Bible speaks to each culture. And somethings translate differently to different cultures.

 

Actually, I am not playing dumb. Hiring a hooker is the same as a one night stand. Sure there is money involved... but a movie and dinner/drinks ain't free, either. The difference between common law marriage and a one night stand? The length of time. If two people want to commit themselves to one another, then do it. If they don't care enough about the other to be married (besides living together for however long a state requires) then they are not "committed" to one another.

Maybe I'm just old fashioned or whatever. But I see as giving common law marriage a nod the same as condoning pre-martial sex and adultery. It is just another example of the church sliding further down the slope of the culture, becoming more and more like it. There are very few distinctions between the church and the world... and many here are willing to remove this from that list.

My state does not recognize common law marriage, but the one 25 miles away does. To me the distance is irrelevant as it is still two people playing married who aren't. That is still fornication and/or adultery (depending on the legal status of one or both parties) in my book.

If a couple from the neighboring state came to our church and wanted to join I would call for them to be married within the laws of my state before I would accept them. To do otherwise would be to openly allow and condone sin within the church. If I moved to the other state I would still do the same thing, no matter if the state was willing to lower its standards or not.

If marriage has so little worth, why does the bible condemn adultery? I mean, if marriage is pagan and is actually extra-biblical, why is it even mentioned? Why does the OT tell the people to stone those who are caught having sex outside of marriage, and that those caught in adultery should suffer the same fate? I don't recall the NT rescinding anything about marriage. Paul even exhorted believers to remain married to their unbelieving spouses and for believers to marry rather than to burn (either in lust or whatever).

Seems to me marriage actually has a very high calling and should be the standard for those who are called by His name.

 

how long does it take to be considered a common law marriage?

 

Will you PLEASE read what I am saying and not 'into' or 'partially' what I am saying.

My point about 'will get married' is specifically with reference to those states that require a set amount of time to transpire before they can be officially deemed by the state as married.

It is not a rarity that they are disputed though it is also not necessarily the norm either, but it does happen. The problem with your above is that you must first 'prove' there was a 'contracted' marriage to begin with.

 

I think you forgot about the part, there were no other living humans around so that is all there could possibly be. However another aspect you left out is not that God told Adam - Other there is someone I made for you, go take her.

Vs 22 - God brought Eve to (as a Father brings his daughter to the groom to yeild authority over her to another) - and it was out in the open before all ceation.
Vs 23 - Adam declared his desire for his union to this particular woman
Vs 24 - Adam verbally proclaimed His vows to her with respect to them (unified)
Vs 25 - Here we see that both were naked but because they were man AND wife, they were not ashamed. - God and creation however

It is paramont note that, until THIS point, scripture never records either of them as being naked prior. What does this tell us?

Most theologians speculate that they were covered by God's glory and thus they were not specifically naked. Even if not, this is the first mention of either person being naked so something had changed. Thas we see that AFTER they were wed, Adam and Eve were indeed naked.

So what do we see happening as the first wedding, in which no other humans were present.

1. God brought the woman to the man, in the open. (IOW - before all) and as such showing/establishes headship was being given over
2. Adam verbally declared his desire for unity
3. Adam verbally declared his vow concerning her and them.
4. They were deemed - man and wife
All of this was done publically or in the open.

They were then considered by scripture to be wed, and were premitted to consumate the union. Some used to and still do hold that it is the consumation that establishes the marriage, but here we find that it is the fulfillment of wedding vows and not the marriage itself.

 

You seem to not understanding the entire argument here, along with some others, and this is astounding to me!

The argument pertains to those states in which the couple MUST live together for a certain period of time and claim to other as a spouse BEFORE that are validated by the state as actaully married, which is typically at 'least' one year. I know of NONE who can or would remain chaste for that time period, while lieing next to and living with one you claim as spouse.

As a matter of personal note on this issue, I know two very loving people are friends of mine that tried this very thing, to prove their love and christian character. They were honest and upfront with the pastor, when after 2 weeks they broke the chastity. They seperated, repented, prayed (about each other) and came together in marriage not much later. And praise God to this day they are still married and doing well

In case anyone is wondering - Yes, I ask them both if I could use them as an example without giving their names and they agreed.

I agree, and it would be important for you to first take it out of your own eye.

 

Hmm.. the ceremony and contract of marriage.

Scripture doesn't tell us, nor does it specifically spell out what is necessary to be said, except that the union is sealed and established (Adam's vows)

Yes, actaully, according to Jewish tradition at that time. Actually she even walked through the streets

You mean the bridegroom. Yes he was present, he even went before the groom declaring that he was on his way - get ready! in which he was also letting all those around know the marriage was about to take place and they were welcome to witness it.

Basically, we are your witnesses

No, it does speak of and to these things as I stated above. However 'how' they are done and exactly what is to be said we find scripture somewhat silent.

Most likely another male of authority in Abrahams house, however the wedding itself isn't spoken of. Only that he took her as his wife. We find this often in scripture because it wasn't something contested. In order for a person to 'marry' another, it was much more than a state of mind, or s*xual affair. It was a public declaration though how public was determined by money, status, and or time.

The open declaration of desired unitity and vows of commitment before witnesses.

Scripture doesn't say anything of these were not present. It assumes the facts of what was historically done and understood.