• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Regarding Licenses

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc

Doc

Member
Real Person
I would like to hear various points of view regarding the relationship of marriage licenses as it relates not only to our particular issue of plural marriage, but also to marriage in general.

My own view is that only God can ordain a marriage, not a government body (the State). The State can no more say who is married (at least biblically), than who can be a minister, or what group of people forms a 'church body'.

That is not to say that I do not believe that two (or in our case more) people cannot enter into a mutual, legal, agreement that protected the collective assets and provided for the welfare of children produced from the established relationship. In fact, I would hope that any attempt at plural (or traditional) marriage would want this. But this legal issue is different from 'marriage' itself.

It all comes down to definitions, doesn't it? How do we define 'Marriage' (capital M), as opposed to the world's (and to great extent, most of Christendom's) definition of 'marriage'?

US: Marriage-Biblical, patriarchal, man and woman, sometimes M+W, sometimes M+W++. Never W+M++, M+M,W+W. No adultery, no fornication, no abuse.

THEM: marriage-anything goes (M+W,W+W,M+M) EXCEPT M+W++. Adultery, fornication, abuse all winked at.

Any thoughts or input?
 
I made the mistake of getting state permission to marry a woman, now I live with the consequences.
Those documents give her 50% rights in the state I live in, regardless of my wishes. Actually, the state will give preference to her until a legal seperation is finalised, so in reality, she has more than 50% control. It's poison to society in my opinion.
I'd rather see things like a ketubah being used for a definition of property rights what the involved parties can expect out of the relationship, not the least of which should be a mutual caring for the health and welfare of the other.
http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm has some interesting info on it
 
I definitely agree. True marriage has nothing to do with a government or a religious institution. A person does not need the state's license or permission to marry. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. God alone, not Caesar, grants the right to marry and He defines the terms. Government-given "marriages" and government-given "divorces" have no binding authority whatsoever on the legitimacy of Biblical marriage. Whatever the government chooses to define, permit or revoke has absolutely no meaning or bearing in terms of whether Biblical marriages are "existing" or "voided", although Believers who do not know any better can be deceived into accepting the government's rulings. Scripture should be our sole authority regarding what defines actual marriage covenant terms.

A Biblical marriage covenant is between a man and a woman, of their own free will, committing themselves to each other before God as husband and wife, and then consummating that commitment with the sexual union. While a man may certainly take more than one wife, each man-woman relationship is a marriage covenant unto themselves, independent of his other covenant agreements.
 
Brother's Doc and djanakes,

If I remember something my pastor said......that when someone was "married" or joined together in a Covenant Relationship.....there was most always something done or given, that should others see at least the woman, they would know that she was the wife of someone. I feel that the "state" needs to get out of saying who can get married, but that they should issue a "legal document" once some sort of agreed upon item was shown that proved they were married , so that from a legal standpoint, insurance, health benefits, etc from the husbands employer would be provided to the wife or wives and all children. Hope this makes sense, I aint running on all cyl today.
 
Chaplain said:
If I remember something my pastor said......that when someone was "married" or joined together in a Covenant Relationship.....there was most always something done or given, that should others see at least the woman, they would know that she was the wife of someone.
Click to expand...

In order to be applicable to "others" in a culture, we'd probably use the standard they use to communicate marriage. For modern western society, that would be the wedding ring. My wife proudly wears her wedding ring and engagement ring (they were designed to connect together as a single ring after we were married, so she'd always be able to wear the engagement diamond as part of her wedding ring), whereas I do not wear any type of ring. I believe the symbol indicates the wife's binding to the husband, whereas a wedding ring for a man would be role reversal, seeing as he is free to marry again. My wife was actually the one that suggested this arrangement as our understanding grew out of what Scripture shows. (That was fine by me as I hate wearing jewelry anyway.) :lol:

However, I agree that a more formal document of marriage intent would be desirable. A declaration of the marital status without a license getting in the way. Which brings up another question. For those of you already in a polygynous marriage, how did you handle the marriage licenses for each of the wives? Did the husband legally divorce one to legally marry the next, did none of you bother with state recognition at all, or did you come to this understanding after already being married and just retained the original legal marriage? I can see pros and cons for different situations, although knowing what I know now, I never would have bothered with even a first marriage license from the state.

David
 
David,

I too would like to hear comments and suggestions as to the approaches those already in plural relationships used regarding this issue.

Thanks,

Doc Burkhart
 
For the most part, I am in agreement with those above who recognize that God ordains marriage, not Caesar. Several years of study of the Bible as the foundation for all Law in these united States - from the Committees of Correspondence and common law, to the Declaration and subsequent Articles of Confederation and Constitutions - has convinced me that the Founders had a very good understanding of the basis for Law. As such, I tend to take a 'harder line' on what has happened in the following centuries, as our Law has been undermined and the Statutes and Ordinances of our Creator have been increasingly rejected.

The one minor correction I would make to the above is important, for starters:
A license by definition "confers a right" to do something.
Click to expand...

It is not a "Right" that is conferred, but rather permission. (Most law dictionaries define 'license' more specifically as "Permission from a competent authority to do that which is otherwise not allowable." Things which are Rights -- especially in a nation which once declared that Rights come from God, not governments "instituted among men" -- can never require permission.)

Permission from Caesar ALWAYS has "strings attached". His mark should not be confused with God's. Asking for his permission is presumed, like acceptance of a contract, as assent to his authority. Don't fall for it! (Samuel's warning to the people who rejected God and demanded a king, "like other nations", is very appropriate in this context.)

Yeshua pointedly observed that we cannot serve two masters, and multiple witnesses in the Bible advise as well that we "choose this day Whom we will serve".

I have long concluded that those who need to beg Caesar's permission and pray for Caesar's blessing will find that he is but the prince of this world. If we trust in God and His blessings, we have no need of Satan's imitation -- or any other King.
 
Just moments ago, it was announced that the California State Supreme Court has ruled that Gay marriage in California is legal and that the existing ban against Gay marriage in the state is unconstitutional. So much for the state defining marriage. :roll: Here's what they said:

"Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

Just one more reason why we, as Believers, need to completely reject what the government defines as marriage and divorce and turn to God's Word to see what HE says.
 
DJ,

You beat me to it. :D I was going to post a link to one of the sources.

Those of us in the Christian plural marriage community need to keep an eye on this.

Blessings

Doc Burkhart
 
Here's my take on the summary article that World Net Daily published. Joe Farah and I have had some discussions about the Bible and polygyny in the past; I don't think he'll print this (although I do know he at least read it), but I'll put it here:
Editor --

The column today bemoaning the fact that "Judges Trash Traditional Marriage" just serves to illustrate the fallacy:

"Tradition" doesn't define marriage - God did!

Any attempt to ignore that particular Truth simply underscores why such ruses are doomed to failure. If God, in His Word,
did NOT correctly ordain marriage -- in its complete, patriarchal, NON-Politically-Correct form -- then what makes anyone believe that
power-mad politicians could do better?!

Our Savior warned against fallen men who replace His commandments with their "tradition". All this talk about Constitutional amendments is typical government-glorifying sleight-of-hand, especially given that judges routinely ignore the clear wording
of the Constitution already. Pretending to ignore the Bible is equally disingenuous, and doomed to failure.

No wonder He warned us to "have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness"!



Sincerely,

Mark Call

Niwot, Colorado
Click to expand...
 
Hi well i dont know anything about any of this much less about constitutional law but I have an thought. States have "common law" marriage laws right? Well who is to say that a man can't be "common law" married to more than one woman? If he lives with all of them long enough then it's a done deal and no one is "illegal"!! What say you all who actually know what your talking about? :oops:
 
Well who is to say that a man can't be "common law" married to more than one woman?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, often the same entity which takes upon itself the claim to define marriage in the first place, Marichu.

Rather than being a true "common law" institution, the situation often becomes, if allowed, a statutory one.

Check the specific statutes in your state.


The bottom line is still to "come out of her, My people", in my own reading, and don't participate the the world's system.
 
Good points, - true marriage needs no label. But since we do want to explain WHY we don't believe in marriage licenses, and why we want the state out of our marriages, we do need terminology when talk we talk with those who still equate license<->marriage. (And the Christians who therefore get so upset about so-called "gay marriage". In my opinion, so what?: just more evidence that a state license does NOT equal marriage.)
 
According to some Biblical scholars, you are married unless you gave her a 'get'. It's a document releasing your wife from marriage. So, according to them, you still are.
However, if you sued for divorce, seems to me that would satisfy the requirements.
Now, if she sued for divorce, I guess if you signed the documents, there again it might satsisfy the requirements.
Either way, there should be some document with your signature on it stating that she is no longer your wife, and is free to marry another.
Men don't need that device, however, if one abandons a woman without a 'get', I would consider him to be causing her to commit adultery.
 
So, does this mean that if one really disagrees with government licenses, one should put this belief into practice by:

1. Never ever getting married with a state license?
and
2. If one already has one, should he renounce it by getting a divorce from his present wife (at least a state divorce)?
 
DaPastor said:
So, does this mean that if one really disagrees with government licenses, one should put this belief into practice by:

1. Never ever getting married with a state license?
and
2. If one already has one, should he renounce it by getting a divorce from his present wife (at least a state divorce)?
Click to expand...

Good Morning Brother,

In my view , if God gave me the blessing of another wife, I would have to decided how to do the particulars, dealing with society, family, and such. So I look back onto what the first christians did. Even though worshiping Christ was punishable by death, people still worship christ the lord under the cover of secrecy in order to protect their families and themselves from persecution. When one person would come upon another, a drawing of a fish was done in the ground, if the other drew the same fish, they both knew they were with a fellow christian. Given this, I would not seek a license to show my marriage for it is unneeded with Gods definition of what constitutes a marriage.

The license to marry is nothing more than State recognition, the State does not always recognize God or his commandments, point in veiw taking away prayer in school, ten comamndments from court house steps, and the like. This does not negate what is holy with God. So until the Government recognizes the legitimacy of plural marriage, I would not get a license from the Government to do something God says I can do.

As far as divorce, that is a tricky one to those that already have a license. According to the bible a man must give a writ of divorcement for him to put her away. God also says what he has put together let no man put asunder. So government is man, and government decrees of divorcement are from man. Just because the government says a couple is no longer married, doesnt mean they are in the sight of the Lord, because assuming a man does not want to divorce his wife, she can force the divorce anyway without his permission. The man had not given a writ of divorcement to the wife, so even if she gets a divorce decree from the government, she is still commiting adultry.

Using this, I would never divorce my first wife just to take on a second wife, just so that both could be recognize in some fashion by the State. I may be wrong but this is how I would go about the process when it comes to society, as far as our lord, any convenants made between me and my future wife, if there is to be one, would be all that would be required in Gods eyes. Like I said, this is what I believe that I would do if the occasion ever came to be.

God Bless

Chris
 
...According to the bible a man must give a writ of divorcement for him to put her away...

Using this, I would never divorce my first wife just to take on a second wife,
Click to expand...

A couple of strictly man's-law-oriented corrections here, Chris. Since you would not in such a case be putting anyone away, there is no issue of divorce. More importantly, however, the proper way to get rid of a license (or contract) that you come to recognize as fraudulent is called "recission"; the idea is to restore the proper relationship as if the bogus contract never happened.
 
Mari,

You bring up a good point with your link. That has always been my argument re licenses. Now, if the government wants to issue a 'civil contract' to protect rights to property, or to protect children, or the individual rights of people in that contract, then fine. But lets call it that, and not marriage.

However.......

Since the government has co-opted the rights, priviledges and language of marriage, it is time for new definition. I already started a post on this line.

On the one hand, whats going on in California actually opens up opportunities for us in the plural marriage movement. But at what price?

Doc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top