Openly Curious Posted January 15, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 15, 2014 Good morning everyone. One of my questions for today is, why do churches require a marriage certificate before marrying two people? Why won't churches marry people without an "offical" marriage certificate? Hi JustinM, First I personally believe that the churches should require a marriage certificate before marrying two people. It is the law of the land that a marriage certificate is required for two people to get married. So in that regards I think the churches comply. Churches can go the route of going ahead and marrying two people who wish to marry without having a marriage certificate but there are problems with doing it. Some of the problems would be a couple could be accountable to their local body of believers but not accountable when it comes to the laws of the land. There would be many who wouldn't take proper and rightful responsibility for their families no legal responsibility without a legal document. Without a legal document a spouse or parent would have difficulty should legal action be required and necessary for child support or what not. It is for this reason a church should require a marriage license. The church could hold all married couples accountable in the local body. But what if that couple decides not to be apart of that local body and leave the church. At least a marriage certificate would hold the couple accountable according to the laws of the land. I think people fail to see that there is a natural side to life as well as the spiritual side of things. Although it is a good and worthy topic for discussion. blessings The laws of the land don't require two people be married to live together and call it a marriage. The laws only require a license if you desire state recognition. My problem of late with state recognition is I don't agree with many of the things the things the state is doing with marriage. Allowing homosexual marriage was the last straw for me. I don't think state recognition of marriage has done much to deter divorce. I personally feel like official church recognition of the marriage would be more powerful, especially if they refuse to dissolve a marriage as easily as a judge will. Either way, there must be a genuine lifetime commitment, and there should be some kind of certificate given by the church. I don't believe I said that the laws of the land required couples who are living together to get a marriage liscense. In fact people who are living together and are sexually active and having babies and the what not outside of marriage. Those who are living outside of marriage in fornication many are unaccountable for their actions legally. I'm just saying that some kind of legal proof of a marriage should be given as a legal document as proof of a legitimate marriage. That legal document can come from the church or whoever as long as it is legal binding document. There are just too many illigitimate children being born out of wedlock while people are shacking up together with no commitment. Then the government ends up picking up the tab and we both know where they get the money from to pay the tab. There are people shaking up and many don't even know who the father of their children are. Hence no legal responsibility or accountability. I don't agree with all of the things the states are doing in allowing same sex marriage either it is destestable. Same sex unions should never be recognized as a marriage which takes place between one man and one woman. Because in my personal view and belief that it is not a marriage but a perversion. As far as the state recongnitions of marriage goes I don't believe it was ever meant to deter divorce from happening in the first place but to make the marriage legally binding. That is why many people live together outside of marriage to start with they want no commitment or to be bound legally. I do agree the church for the most part would be a deterent against divorce and an advocate for reconciliation. I just think there ought to be some kind of legal document that makes a marriage legal and binding in the land because of the lawless. I guess I am not sure what you mean when you say "legally binding?" If you are able to get a divorce, marriage isn't binding to begin with. If you mean legally recognized, I get your point. If we could make reforms to the current marriage laws, I would agree with you. Until the gay marriage issue came up, I was 100 percent in agreement with you. Then I started re-thinking the whole matter. I also tried to look at what might be contributing to the high divorce rate, and I think things like alimony, especially in no fault states, and large child support payments are making divorce more easy. I would like to see a divorce very difficult to obtain. It needs to be legal because there are extreme cases where there is abuse or infidelity, and nobody should have to tolerate those conditions, but divorce has become too easy. Even the churches are too accepting of it, even when it occurs many times over and for unbiblical reasons. Perhaps there needs to be some middle ground here, because the main concern should be for the children. They are sadly the ones that usually get the least consideration. In other words their ought to be legal consequences for not keeping the marriage agreement between two people. For the most part their is protection should a marriage go bad in the event of spousal abuse, child abuse and neglect, adultery as you can take legal action in these cases. But if marriages are not "legally" recognized and not just spiritually recognized by the church then the protection wouldn't be there. I agree divorce is too easy to obtain but being bound together legally having a marriage certificate will not stop divorce it only gives legal consequences for not keeping the marriage commitment you agreed to too start with. This is why people shack up and live together they can just walk away anytime they choose and lots of times they leave a big mess behind them when they go like the illigitimate children, being left without a provider nothing to stop them. It ought not be like that in my opinion. I don't think the law was ever meant to prevent divorce but to protect the marriage agreement or contract that two people made with each other. So to me a marriage certificate is important so the marriage is legally recognized as it is a legal document. Without it I think in the natural realm of things marriages wouldn't be recognized by the states even though the church would regonize them. The churches could hold married couples accountable without having a marriage certificate that's not a problem in and of itself. But what real consequences would there really be that the church could carry out as the church can't make a person per say provide for their children and do right by their spouses. Sure the church can be a big spiritual giant in the realm of influence over a marriage. But when it comes down to it I think the only consequences that there would be from the church as far as discipline or correction and accountability goes toward those in marriage that are doing wrong. Would ultimately be dismembership and that's it. At least that is the way I see it as of right now but it could change. And I agree with you that there needs to be some middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted January 15, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 15, 2014 Mawage! Mawage is what bwings us togethaw today. That bwessed awangement, that dweam within a dweam, . . . . Sorry, I couldn't resist! Carry on. That cute Nebula, it reminds me of tweety bird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 15, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 15, 2014 That cute Nebula, it reminds me of tweety bird Thanks . . . but Tweety bird? Inconceivable! Where's the brute squad? (Someone help me out here...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 To me, marriage is a spiritual union created by God. The government really has no business in giving out marriage licenses. Who is the government to tell us who is qualified or not qualified to marry? In the beginning, a license was given to show a union between a man and a woman, based on the definition of marriage since the beginning of time. Now it has been expanded by the government to include two men or two women, making them equal to a union between a man and a woman. Things change as society changes when the government is involved, whereas with God, marriage will never be acceptable between two members of the same sex. As society gets more wicked, the government will continue to change with it, expanding the definition of marriage, and giving "protections" to anyone they believe qualify for a marriage license. I would rather leave such things to the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted January 15, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted January 15, 2014 To me, marriage is a spiritual union created by God. The government really has no business in giving out marriage licenses. Who is the government to tell us who is qualified or not qualified to marry? In the beginning, a license was given to show a union between a man and a woman, based on the definition of marriage since the beginning of time. Now it has been expanded by the government to include two men or two women, making them equal to a union between a man and a woman. Things change as society changes when the government is involved, whereas with God, marriage will never be acceptable between two members of the same sex. As society gets more wicked, the government will continue to change with it, expanding the definition of marriage, and giving "protections" to anyone they believe qualify for a marriage license. I would rather leave such things to the church. I understand what you are saying Butero. The government has not right at all to tell the American citizens who is qualified or not qualified to marry. But you can have a marriage certificate showing proof of the marriage without the government butting in and it could be given by the church. There needs to be change for sure and I don't agree with liscening two people of the same sex and calling it a marriage for it is not. The government in my opinion has no right to redefine what marriage really is into something it is not. Unfortunately as you've touched upon our society does change and it changes with the times and seasons. The times and seasons grow more wicked as time progresses and that want change. God knows what marriage is and doesn't accept what has been disguised as marriage between two people of the same sex in our country. For they are not equal in my personal view of right and wrong. I agree the church should be more soveriegn if that's the right word to use from the world and I'm all for that. I just think there ought to be a marrigae certificate given to the married couple as proof of the wedding is all. I wonder if the sovereign island that was for sale a while back called "Sea Island" is still up for sale. I would be all for a new country that would govern the land in the fear of the Lord and according to the will of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I believe the island you are thinking of is Sealand? I remember discussing that with Marnie and a few others when it went up for sale a few years ago. It was actually a sovereign country on a man-made island. Sometimes I think about what it would be like to find an island somewhere and start a new country. At Christmas time, I was giving Rush Limbaugh's new book, "Rush Revere And The Brave Pilgrims" as gifts to children, and I bought a copy to read myself. When I read about the pilgrims coming to America to flee tyranny in England, I thought about how nice it would be to have a place to go to start over again to flee the tyranny from this out of control government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinM Posted January 17, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 quote Butero: "To me, marriage is a spiritual union created by God. The government really has no business in giving out marriage licenses." I agree, and that was the question I asked, though I used the word "certificates" instead of "license" (inadvertently). Once the Church gave up the authority to certify marriages, it also gave up the authority to decide who can be married and who cannot. I foresee homosexual, polygamous, and even incestual marriages being legalized in my lifetime. Why should anything be excluded now, since the basis for legalizing homosexual "marriages" was for "equal protection under the law?" If America truly believes that, then wouldn't all conceivable types of marriages now be afforded "equal protection under the law?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinM Posted January 17, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 The simple fact of the matter is, a significant enough amount of people in the US no longer want to be constrained to the rule of Law. They want the rule of Man, because they believe a person's natural inclination towards compassion will make life more fair for everyone. The only problem is, compassion and fairness isn't a natural instinct, man is inherently flawed from birth and must be taught to do good. That is why the mother/father family structure was so vital to freedom. The progressives understood that, and from that epiphany decades ago, they have done every conceivable thing they could to destroy the family structure; legalizing homosexual "marriages" is one of the last steps. After that, the State will begin claiming a "national" interest in raising our kids and will take them from us. We have already seen this happening with CPS, truancy laws, and increasing hostility towards home/private schooling. You don't have to be a genius to figure out what will happen after that. People will stop wedding and having children. It will be worse than China's one child policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts