Married to the State?

No they are not married.

 

In the eyes of God they are married.

 

The reason for political involvement in marriage is legal after-affects...What happens if....? Lawyers get involved and your biblical view of marriage isn't worth two pence in court.

Do you think for a moment a government could care about your marriage?

Cheers,

Jim

 

They don't live together as husband and wife for the simple fact that husband and wife has a meaning ... married. They are living together as boyfriend and girlfriend, profaning the institution of marriage.

To say that the State becomes a third party to the marriage is really not true in any sense, unless the state is a third party to all contracts, since the state law governs all contracts.

No, they are not really married.

 

Do you have any Scripture to support this dichotomy between "married in the eyes of God" and "married in the eyes of anyone else"?

 

Except in Canada where a couple who live together for one year are deemed to be married and they fall under the tax laws and must file income taxes as a married couple.

Countries will differ on marriage laws,,What does that tell you about marriage licences?

Cheers,

Jim

 

I may be way off base here as that I have not done an exhaustive study on the topic. First off the marriage is not a contract, it is a vow. I stress this to any couples that I counsel on the subject. A contract can be broken if one or another party fails to uphold their end of the contract. If you view marriage as a contract then you must allow a divorce on any grounds that break the contract. So I party X fails to "cherish" part "Y", then that is valid grounds for divorce under the contract.

The whole idea of a license is so the state can get it's cut of taxes and also to validate tax staus etc. I do not feel that God requires it, but society does. I think what constitutes a marriage is the vow to one another for life before God. Is that biblical? I'm not sure. But I don't think the Bible expressly tells us what makes the marriage. I have heard several preachers preach that God performed the first marriage but I fail to find that in scriture.

 

Also,

When the nation finally gets around to accepting homosexual marriages I will encourage couples to be "married in the eyes of God" and not in the "eyes of the state". In other words, I'll perform the ceremony but will not recognize the licesne nor sign it.

 

Basically, these people are trying to save on taxes by not getting a state recognized marriage. I think that this is more common among senior citizens.

 

That is foolish. Do as we did and have the government change the wording so that we are not obligated to marry anyone not of our choosing. That's what we did in Canada.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I'll assume this was directed at my post about not getting a license since you didn't quote anyone. I have put a great deal of prayer and thought into the decision and feel this is the only way for me to proceed. I repect the rights of others to act differently and disagree with my stance. I do not think their would be many couples who would want to proceed in this manner, but I will hold to my convictions.

I already refuse to marry anyone in who I do not feel should marry.

 

This is not a helpful distinction. It is a covenant, but covenants can be broken.

Not necessarily.

If society requires it, then God does as well, since we are to submit to the governmental authority.

Again, I know of no biblical distinction between "married in the eyes of God" and "married in the eyes of anyone else." Secondly, if you "perform" the ceremony but don't sign the license, they are not married. If they do not get married, they will be living in sin. So if you are going to do this, don't perform the ceremony and mislead the people into thinking they are married. Third, accepting homosexual marriages is not the issue. I don't marry a lot of people that I have been asked to. In fact, most people who request me marry them back out before we get there because of what I require from them.

 

As I said, I expect many to disagree with me.

When one marries they say vows, these vows are until death we do part.

We submit until the government's stance disagrees with scriptures. When the government says a marriage is between same sexes, then I am supported by scripture to disagree. If they say that licese is valid for same sex/traditional marriages, then I don't care if they have one or not.

I can not produce scripture to say that marriage in the eyes of God is different that in the eyes of the state and you can not produce scripture saying they are the same. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

 

The bible tells us to obey the laws of our country, the law in this country requires a marriage license to be considered married. This in no way violates scripture, and untill it does, to be married you must have a license. Otherwise it's nothing more then shacking up.

 

I guess my point that I am failing to communicate, is that when it happens, and it will. Marriage has been redefined by the state. It is no longer marriage in the Biblical sense. So the licesne and the view of the "State" is no longer a biblical marriage anyway.

 

I agree, but it takes two people.

I don't see any biblical grounds to do this. You are being required to disobey Scripture in this case.

In the Bible there is only one kind of marriage. There aren't different kinds such as "in God's eyes" or "in someone else's eyes."

 

Not signing the licence is foolish and inviting legal issues, (1) with the government system; (2) with the law should something go awry in that marriage.

Cheers,

Jim

 

That is exactly what I am saying. There is one biblical marriage. If the state says there are same sex marriages, it is not what the bible says is a marriage.

 

Well aware of that