Privatize Marriage:

I'm a devout Christian and I've been following the marriage/gay marriage debate and I've come to a conclusion that is rather libertarian. The problem is that "marriage" has been taken over by government. From ancient times a marriage was a private contract between two individuals and/or their families. In the West, government (namely the Roman Catholic government of Europe) took over marriage to prevent royalty from marrying commoners. This secured their wealth. This continued on under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries. When the American colonies were founded "common law" became the view of marriage. In other words, marriage was an issue of common law because it was a common right (aka natural right). Thus, it wasn't really any of the governments business. George Washington and his wife didn't have a marriage license, neither did Abraham Lincoln and his wife. Frankly, marriage was a private relationship recognized by the couple and blessed by their community of faith. However, after Emancipation state governments began requiring marriage licenses to prevent whites and blacks from marrying. Soon... every state in the Union began requiring a marriage license through the government. Then the government began offering couples "benefits" for being married. The government take over of marriage was complete. Marriage was now another government managed institution.

I believe that the governments hijacking of marriage is the problem... not gay marriage. I believe that marriage should return to the common law realm and be considered a private relationship or association. Here is a link and a few quotes that support this idea regarding marriage.

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License

Privatize Marriage

Privatize Marriage - Slate Magazine

Privatize Marriage | Cato Institute


Quotes...


"My personal opinion is government shouldn’t be involved. The whole country would be better off if individuals made those decisions and it was a private matter." ~ Ron Paul

"The best approach is to make marriage a private matter. When we no longer believe that civilization is dependent on government expansion, regulating excesses, and a license ...for everything we do, we will know that civilization and the ideas of liberty are advancing." ~ Ron Paul

"Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella

"Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriage in their Family Bibles. So should we." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella

"As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State—literally! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of idolatry for me to do so." ~ Pastor Matt Trewhella

"Some couples choose to marry within the meeting without registering their marriage with the government, a tradition dating back to Quakerism's earliest days." ~ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A man and woman are joined together by God... NOT government:


"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." ~ God, Genesis 2:24

"What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” ~ Jesus, Mark 10:9 (ESV)


Christians are admonished not to subject one another to the courts of the unbelievers (that certainly would include civil divorce courts):


"3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?" ~ Paul, I Corinthians 6:3-7 (ESV)

Here is a link to a ministry that believes in a more private and spiritual form of government-free marriage:

http://ingodseyesonly.com/


What are some of your thoughts???

I agree ... how is this a religious issue though?

I recognize this as the fall back position, but it's simply not going to happen because it isn't feasible. there is and always will be way too much legal baggage when it comes to marriage for the government to eliminate its regulatory role. the right to marry can't be denied to groups of people due to sexual orientation, and the SCOTUS will eventually rule this as an equal protection issue. hopefully, they will do so this summer. churches won't have to perform the marriages, but states will have to recognize them.

I also have a lot of thoughts about Leviticus, but that would derail the thread too much.

Because most modern churches define marriage as a civil institution. I'm interested in the thoughts of the religious community regarding privatized marriage (spiritual marriage).

Aquila said:

Because most modern churches define marriage as a civil institution. I'm interested in the thoughts of the religious community regarding privatized marriage (spiritual marriage).

Click to expand...

They define it as such because that's what it is in modern society, not because that is what scripture dictates ...

Also you can't use lack of referance to the state in the new testament as an arugment, the new testament was for a tiny christian community with no social power, thus you'd have no direct instruction on how to direct social power, christian principle has to take precident on that.

I've supported this idea since I heard Doug Stanhope talk about it:

Aquila said:

What are some of your thoughts?

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with religion?

Aquila said:

Because most modern churches define marriage as a civil institution.

Click to expand...

Uh no they don't. Most churches regard marriage as a holy sacrament.

Aquila said:

I'm interested in the thoughts of the religious community regarding privatized marriage (spiritual marriage).

Click to expand...

What's to privatize? You aren't making very much sense at all.

I don't see it as a "fall back" position. Nor do I see it as being unfeasible. Here's why...

It's actually a progressive position, especially for those who are strong advocates of privacy rights with relation to an individual's right to private associations and relationships. It's a pro civil rights position.

It isn't unfeasible because vast numbers of individuals (both religious and non-religious) are choosing to cohabitate without being legally married. If a third of American couples are cohabitating without being "legally married" they are already, in a way, presently living in a private marriage. There are cohabitation agreements and domestic partner laws that do not require much legal bondage to procure most of the rights of a "legally married" couple. Some states even recognize "Common Law" marriages. Quakers, for example, believe in a strong separation of church and state. For this reason, they don't have licensed clergy. Not having licensed clergy has led to "self-officiation" of the marriage bond... and yes... it is traditionally without a marriage license issued by the civil government. In some states, these marriages are recognized as "Common Law" marriages. However, in most, these are private marriages not recognized by the government unless the Quaker couple has a marriage license and their marriage performed by an authorized agent of the state (state licensed minister or judge).

With the number of cohabitating couples growing... the DNA behind the idea of privatized marriage is essentially becoming foundational to more and more couples. All that is needed is for the church to begin blessing these unions as private/spiritual marriages.

I also have a personal testimony. I've been through a terrible divorce. It was long and expensive. And then I met a lady, a beautiful woman that I knew back in high school. She too had been through a terrible divorce. We both have kids. We began dating and things become increasingly serious between us. However, the idea of a "civil marriage" still didn't sit well with us. Both of us had unfaithful partners that tried to destroy us in court. We agreed... we never wanted to experience that hades again. Finances became a serous issue when she lost her job. So... I let her and her daughter move it with me. Most of my church family didn't agree, but were understanding. Some became bent on trying to disfellowship us and spread slander and accusations as to our true motives. It was very very painful. When I discovered the idea of a "privatized marriage" (spiritual marriage) while studying differing views about marriage, I shared them with my lady love. With that we planned a Saturday with close friends and her parents. We stood together and pronounced our vows to one another and exchanged rings. No clergy. No license. Just love and family. My family wasn't in attendance because they didn't agree with it. Her family just wants us to be happy and to follow our hearts with regards to what we feel God has called us to do. So... now she is my wife. However, our marriage isn't legally recognized by the government... and frankly... we don't care. We're not asking the government for anything. So far, no church has asked us about our marriage being legal or not. The rings we wear testify to our heart and soul towards one another as being husband and wife. We have also signed two family Bibles as husband and wife (the Bible itself being our marriage contract). So... I can say that me and my wife have been in a "private marriage" for a little over a year now and we've been very happy.

So... I don't see this idea as unfeasible. I see it as a matter of couples and churches choosing to be recognized, or to recognize, the union as a private/spiritual marriage.

Jerry said:

Uh no they don't. Most churches regard marriage as a holy sacrament.

Click to expand...

So, are you saying they don't require the marriage to be recognized by the government to be valid?

I'm a Protestant. So, marriage is largely a private or civil matter in my faith.

What's to privatize? You aren't making very much sense at all.

Click to expand...

\

I'll try to clarify as the conversation continues.

Link to what is known as a "Quaker Wedding" (self-officiated wedding).

The Quaker Wedding - YouTube

Aquila said:

It's actually a progressive position...

Click to expand...

That alone is reason enough to oppose it and I don't even know what you're talking about.

Aquila said:

especially for those who are strong advocates of privacy rights with relation to an individual's right to private associations and relationships. It's a pro civil rights position.

Click to expand...

You aren't forced to marry. If you think marriage violates your rights in some way, then don't marry. It's that easy.

Aquila said:

With the number of cohabitating couples growing... the DNA behind the idea of privatized marriage is essentially becoming foundational to more and more couples. All that is needed is for the church to begin blessing these unions as private/spiritual marriages.

Click to expand...

How is that any different from what a church does now?

Jerry said:

That alone is reason enough to oppose it and I don't even know what you're talking about.


You aren't forced to marry. If you think marriage violates your rights in some way, then don't marry. It's that easy.


How is that any different from what a church does now?

Click to expand...

I'll explain shortly...

I think that you'll find it interesting.

Aquila said:

I'll explain shortly...

I think that you'll find it interesting.

Click to expand...

You should have explained it in your OP. I have no idea what you mean by "privatize marriage". What is this thread about?

Helix said:

I recognize this as the fall back position, but it's simply not going to happen because it isn't feasible. there is and always will be way too much legal baggage when it comes to marriage for the government to eliminate its regulatory role. the right to marry can't be denied to groups of people due to sexual orientation, and the SCOTUS will eventually rule this as an equal protection issue. hopefully, they will do so this summer. churches won't have to perform the marriages, but states will have to recognize them.

I also have a lot of thoughts about Leviticus, but that would derail the thread too much.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The OP's proposal sounds great in theory, but it is completely unworkable in practice.

No one is going to willingly surrender all of the various economic and legal benefits government backed marriage provides.

Aquila said:

So, are you saying they don't require the marriage to be recognized by the government to be valid?

Click to expand...

That's correct. My mother in-law was married in a church, it wasn't made legal, they live as husband and wife and are regarded as such by friends and family.

You don't need a church or a government to be married, so I don't know what you're proposing.

This is just BS.

Legal marriage can only be done within a Governmental institution.

You go to the civil office with your future spouse. You sign a piece of paper. And you're done. that's it. There is no such thing as
"private marriage".
it's an absurd concept.

And religious ceremonial weddings are just that. Weddings. Whether you hold a wedding or not, depending on your religion, it doesn't matter in the eyes of the state. From a legal perspective, if you hold a wedding and not sign that piece of paper at the civil office, you're not legally married. If you sign that piece of paper and not hold a wedding, you are legally married.

and if you do both, sign the piece of paper and hold a wedding, congrats, you are doing what everybody is doing and that's great.

There is no such thing as "keep the govt out of marriage". yes, it is your business whom you are marrying, but guess what, its society's business too. These things to into statistics to analyze the health of the population. Without it, it's like going on a train without knowing where you're going or where you are at any given moment.

So stop this non-sense about "keep the govt out of marriage". Just stop it. You're making a fool of yourselves if you support this. Moreover, why the hell is this in the "religious discussions" subforum. It doesn't belong here because marriage is not a religious issue.

Weddings are!

Jerry said:

That alone is reason enough to oppose it and I don't even know what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

When I say "progressive" I mean that it is a step forward for human liberty with regards to breaking away from unnecessary governmental regulation.

You aren't forced to marry. If you think marriage violates your rights in some way, then don't marry. It's that easy.

Click to expand...

It sounds easy when one says it as you did. However, I had been in a church for 21 years. They were the only family I ever had. Well, I suffered through a divorce and after moving on I allowed my girlfriend to move in with me. The church demanded that we get legally married... or I was off the choir, off the minister's team, out of the Sunday School department, and I'd be off the street evangelism team. The problem was... we'd both been through very painful and expensive divorces. Neither one of us wanted another "civil marriage" under the auspices of the state. So... we ended up having to leave my church home... the only family I had ever known. Now, had the church recognized "spiritual marriages" or "private marriages" that don't involve the government in any manner... I'd have not suffered such a terrible loss. So no, it's not always "that easy".

How is that any different from what a church does now?

Click to expand...

Obviously the Pentecostal churches I've attended are very different from the churches you're familiar with. In most of the churches I've been associated with they will give an unmarried couple until after their new converts classes to begin planning their marriage. If a marriage doesn't follow within several months... I've known some churches to "preach 'em out" or actually tell them that they are not "welcomed". Sure, they can still attend... if they want to be totally ignored.

So... if more churches took spiritual marriages (privatized marriages) more seriously... perhaps we'd see happier couples serving God... rather they have a civil marriage or a spiritual marriage.

Aquila said:

When I say "progressive" I mean that it is a step forward for human liberty with regards to breaking away from unnecessary governmental regulation.

Click to expand...

You're on a political debate forum, certain words are going to carry a different meaning then what you may intend. "Progressive" means liberal, left-wing ideology. "Privatize" means to manage the money yourself, as in "privatizing social security"; which is a Conservative position, so it's odd for a "progressive" to support "privatizing" anything. The thing is, you already manage your own money with the way marriage is today, so advocating to "privatize" marriage doesn't imply any change.

Additionally, the regulation which exists, exists for good reason.

Aquila said:

It sounds easy when one says it as you did. However, I had been in a church for 21 years. They were the only family I ever had. Well, I suffered through a divorce and after moving on I allowed my girlfriend to move in with me. The church demanded that we get legally married... or I was off the choir, off the minister's team, out of the Sunday School department, and I'd be off the street evangelism team. The problem was... we'd both been through very painful and expensive divorces. Neither one of us wanted another "civil marriage" under the auspices of the state. So... we ended up having to leave my church home... the only family I had ever known. Now, had the church recognized "spiritual marriages" or "private marriages" that don't involve the government in any manner... I'd have not suffered such a terrible loss. So no, it's not always "that easy".

Click to expand...

Changing government policy will not change church policy.

Aquila said:

Obviously the Pentecostal churches I've attended are very different from the churches you're familiar with. In most of the churches I've been associated with they will give an unmarried couple until after their new converts classes to begin planning their marriage. If a marriage doesn't follow within several months... I've known some churches to "preach 'em out" or actually tell them that they are not "welcomed". Sure, they can still attend... if they want to be totally ignored.

Click to expand...

The church has the right to shun whoever they want, for what ever reason. Removing the government from marriage will not change this.

Aquila said:

So... if more churches took spiritual marriages (privatized marriages) more seriously... perhaps we'd see happier couples serving God... rather they have a civil marriage or a spiritual marriage.

Click to expand...

You'll have to take that up with the Pope.

I think getting government out of marriage falsely cedes ownership of that word to people who have no claim over it.

Gathomas88 said:

Exactly. The OP's proposal sounds great in theory, but it is completely unworkable in practice.

No one is going to willingly surrender all of the various economic and legal benefits government backed marriage provides.

Click to expand...

It's those government backed benefits us lgbt want, to strip them from everybody because some people want to claim marriage as a church thing, fine we can call it civil union, that is all marriage legally ifs anyway. I can side step that silly bit of semantics. Still going to call my civilly United partner my husband. religious people can freak out all they want.

Deuce said:

I think getting government out of marriage falsely cedes ownership of that word to people who have no claim over it.

Click to expand...

Exactly why it's this word so magical?

CLAX1911 said:

Exactly why it's this word so magical?

Click to expand...

It's one of the few constants found in every human culture.

Jerry said:

It's one of the few constants found in every human culture.

Click to expand...

No it isn't, magic words don't exist

CLAX1911 said:

No it isn't, magic words don't exist

Click to expand...

You're the one talking about magic words. All I said was marriage exists in every human culture, just like language, art and music. That's a fact.