Common law membership

Common law marriage is not cohabitation. There is still a ceremony, but it simply isn't a legally recognized ceremony.

 

in all my research on this topic I found that in order to have a common law marriage all you have to do is live together and tell people you are married. which means the two are required to lie. no cerimnoy required, just shacking up and lying.

 

Did you research common law, or various state statutes concerning common law?

 

They are married, that's why they live together. That's why they tell people they are married, because they are. Do you live with your husband? Do you ever mention to anyone that you are married? Most married people do, don't they?:thumbs:

 

there is no cerimony involved, just moving in together and lying about a real marriage.

 

donnA--you are being blinded by your poor understanding.

In our state of Colorado, at least, common law marriage is legal marriage.

You do not have to "shack up" first for there to be a legal marriage.

You do not have lie.

All you have to do is state that you are married to each other. You can THEN move in together.

It is just as legally binding as any marriage, with all the rights and responsibilities including the necessity of divorce.

Couples that live together and state they are NOT married, even if they have been shacking up for 50 years, ARE NOT MARRIED.

Couples that are not legally impaired from marriage (already married, underage, etc) and declare themselves married ARE MARRIED even if they have not yet moved in together.

Also, if you choose to go get a marriage license, in our state you may sign it and in front of witnesses marry each other, without need of judge or clergy, and YOU ARE MARRIED.

The idea that a ceremony is required goes back to Catholic church mumbo jumbo. Unless the priest does it, it isn't real. Folks took that and made any licensed and ordained clergy acceptable. Non church and non Christian folks were left out so judges and court clerks in some places were added.

You can see the same thing with church membership. Some petty power hungry folks want to limit who's in and who's out. Unless "we" decide you can play you cannot play.

But you know what? Jesus actually warned us against this religious type of person.

God calls people to Himself. God saves them. And when He does they are part of His church.

You don't get a much higher official for the ceremony than that.

That's why at cowboy church if you want to be respected as a member you live it out daily. You respect people. You help people. You share Jesus. You live a life of thanksgiving. You don't argue religion. You don't judge people in respect to their understanding of the Bible.

And it gets us in trouble with the religious type, but we usually assume "fighting fundamentalists" need a good dose of God.

We are a far from perfect, far from consistent group of people. But we figure formal church membership is meaningless if you are a cantankerous old goat, and unneeded if everyone in the community can see you love and follow Jesus.

 

To be fair...i've been to some church services where it wasn't clear who had a pulse and who didn't...

 

Because of the opprobrious epithet "liberal," today they call themselves “moderates.” A skunk by any other name still stinks!


What we have done: We have taken the great, sanctified Baptist doctrine of the priesthood of the believer, and made it to cover every damnable heresy that mind could imagine! It’s a tragedy--it's a tragedy.

W. A. Criswell

http://www.wacriswell.org/Search/VideoTrans.cfm/sermon/1222.cfm

 

This statement is patently false, and if you had truly studied the issue, you would see that.

Anyway, this thread is about church membership, but Salty's title was unadvised and this is what happens.

 

Ann, are you misunderstanding when a common law marriage begins? It begins from the moment the couple exchanges expressions of present intent to be married (not "we have already been married", nor "we will get married"); like what you said at your wedding: "I marry you/I do/I take you as my husband, etc."

 

Okay, we can argue over the definition of common-law marriage, and whether it's an appropriate description of people who attend a church but won't join.

At first blush, that appeared to be appropriate, but as the debate raged on, I began to back away from my position. I now concede that common-law may not be the best way to describe the OP situation. And somehow, shacking up doesn't do it either.

So can we get back to the OP? I don't care what you call it, let's discuss the merits of the situation, not the definition.

I still think that practicality is the best argument for having a church roll. It's called doing things decently and in order. It aids in organization, planning, budgeting, facilities planning, and church discipline. And it facilitates that covenant relationship which members ought to have with one another.

If you church doesn't want to do it that way, help yourself.

 

No, annsi, they have not lied. The same instant they state "we are married" is the same instant they are married.

My hand is not burned right now. If I walk over to the wood stove and put my hand on the top and say "My hand is burned" at the same time, believe me, I would not be lying.

So for someone to say "I am a Baptist" when their life does not add up to what Baptists teach and their beliefs are not Baptist IS a lie, even if their name is on a roll somewhere.

To believe like a Baptist, live like a Baptist, and worship in a Baptist church even if it doesn't do formal membership is to BE a Baptist.

 

Say the all the church clerk's records were lost in a fire. How would one go about establishing one's membership then?

 

So everyone would have to officially rejoin the church?

 

unless it's a treally large church I would think most people would know who were members and who were not.

 

This is a good link to an explanation of the content of Colorado's common law marriage rules:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/PDF/COMMON%20LAW%20MARRIAGE.pdf