Co-habitating

[buckthesystem]

Attitudes have changed very much lately. I don't know when it happened, but I just woke up one day and everything was different.

I was talking with someone I worked with in a supermarket last year. She was telling me about her hard financial state and how they had to save up for this, that and the other. She said "we are paying off furniture and a car, paying rent, and I was going to put money aside for a wedding, but my partner said no! We are not going to get married". She had, at this stage, been living with this guy for about five years and admitted that she was "a bit disappointed" by his reaction, but she did "understand". I asked her why he didn't want to get married and she told me "he doesn't want to be committed". The thing is that they had three children.

So this couple had been living together for five years and paying rent, they had both spent time and money on decorating their house and making a garden, they had bought furniture on "hire purchase" together, he had a car which she had helped him make the payments on (she didn't drive a car, but presumably he drove her and the kids around), they had bought each other "friendship" rings, had three children and yet didn't want to "be committed" and marry.

I said to this woman "how much more committed can you get than what you are already"? Her answer was something along the lines of "if somebody better comes along ......." Then I thought about the kids and how awful it must be for them to be brought up in all this uncertainty.

My grandparents were married "by banns" (spelling?) I'm not 100% sure what this is, but I think it is something like "married in the eyes of the church, but not necessarily the state". Does someone know?

I look at civil marriages as paying money to the state and seeking their permission to marry someone. What is important is if you are or you are not married in the eyes of God.

Would it be that the people in the scenario I mentioned above are actually married in the eyes of God? I don't suppose God pays much attention to a government issued marriage licence.

We all have the strangest reasons for marrying the person we did. 30 years ago when we were married, my husband was in the Navy and we married mostly so that he could get a "marriage allowance" - or what ever it was called - when he was at sea. I think we were both too immature to think beyond "him going to sea" and it is a good thing that it worked out OK afterwards. I think it is absolutely essential that people know for sure if the other party has total commitment to them before having children though.

But this is just another thing where the government has made things for marriage very difficult. People must be put off marriage by the fact that married pensioners get less than two single pensioners and young people are put off not only marriage but "going out" by the "matirmonial property Act". I often hear "satan is out to destroy marriages", but the government is doing it for him.

[David from New Bern]

Bob, I don't know why but your response surprised me. "Avoid the apearance of evil" should be enough grounds I would say, that is what we offer the Lord is our lives and our personal testimony is of great value. Most of the time these unions are afraid of commitment, and therefore the expression of love is a lie. For what is love without commitment, self-gratification. In my state co-habitating is still against the law. So, technically they are breaking the law. They present themelves as married and therefore are living a lie. Certainly, in cases of children produced they have brought their children into the lie. "If you are calling a couple who chose to share a home or even have sex 'backslidden' you are unable to caounsel them because you have already judged them in your mind" I really didn't expect to hear that...You misinterpreted my scenario. I was saying that in their drift from the Lord they also began a relationship of this sort but now through repentance they are trying to put their life back in order. However, your take on the situation is very revealing. You evidently believe as long as it is termed as monogamous it is OK. I differ with you greatly, and my friend please don't you counsel in this situation.

You, like many other ministers, have confused State civil marriage with Biblical marriage. There is no state requiring a couple to pay the fee and have you, or any minister, represent the state at a civil ceremony UNLESS the couple wants to claim they are civilly married and legally protected because of it. I do not know of any state that has outlawed a couple living together and would have to see such law to believe it. Many states HAVE eliminated common-law marriages from their books. Simply because a couple has drifted from the Lord does not make their Biblical marriage sinful. But apparently because you and many other ministers have bought into the idea that a State civil marriage is the same as a Biblical marriage you will probably argue it until the Lord returns. But you asked for our take on it and that is mine. I am at peace before the Lord about it. But if you don't like it that is your problem. I simply gave you the answer you asked for.

There are some 144,000 unmarried couples living together in North Carolina, and they are all breaking the law - a statute that has been on the books since 1805.

The law against cohabitation is rarely enforced. But now the American Civil Liberties Union is suing to overturn it altogether, on behalf of a former sheriff's dispatcher who says she had to quit her job because she wouldn't marry her live-in boyfriend. Deborah Hobbs, 40, says her boss, Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County, near Wilmington, told her to get married, move out or find another job after he found out she and her boyfriend had been living together for three years. The couple did not want to get married, so Hobbs quit.

Her lawsuit, filed in March in state court, seeks to have the cohabitation law declared unconstitutional.

"Certainly the government has no business regulating relationships between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes," said Jennifer Rudinger, state executive director of the ACLU. "This law is 200 years old and a lot of people are very surprised that we even have it on the books."

The sheriff told the Star-News of Wilmington last year that Hobbs' employment was a moral issue as well as a legal question. He said that he tries to avoid hiring people who openly live together, but he doesn't send out deputies to enforce the law.

Hobbs, who is still living with her boyfriend, declined to be interviewed for this story.

Rudinger and other legal experts believe a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down a Texas anti-sodomy law may undermine the basis for North Carolina's cohabitation law, which carries a fine of up to $1,000 and up to 60 days in jail.

Arnold Loewy, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the ACLU lawsuit is almost certain to succeed. If the high court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas protects consensual sex among adults, "it's hard to understand any serious argument that it would not include" the right to live together, he said.

North Carolina is one of seven states that still have laws on the books prohibiting cohabitation of unmarried couples. The others are Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Mississippi and North Dakota. North Carolina appears to be the only state where the law is being challenged.

[David from New Bern]

Someone has said that the institution of marriage is the backbone of our culture and the source of its decay when it decays. Does anyone on this thread believe that is true?

[dakota190]

i missed this the other day, when i first commented on this topic. hebrews chapter 13, verse-4, marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers, God will judge. now, before you legalistic minds try to say, the verse only recommends marriage and doesn't command it, it sounds to me like, if you don't follow the recommendation to marry, you will be considered to be guilty of fornication, at the least, and God will judge you. that unless you are married, the bed is defiled. the term defiled as pertains to the bed in this verse, can only be defined one way. will be judged by God, also isn't open to variations of definition. 1corinthians 7:2, nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife,and let each woman have her own husband. i believe this verse screams marriage. i have noticed alot of contributors on these boards are either very legalistic in their beliefs, or just resort to that view in disagreements. the beauty of the resurrection is that we are now under grace, not the law, and not being jewish we are not bound by everlasting covenants between God and the jewish nation. legalism is a denial of the grace we received by the suffering and resurrection of Jesus, it would seem to me. we also know we cannot excuse our immoral behavior behind our liberty, that we gained by grace. although i can't seem to find it right now, paul, recommends marriage, rather than burning in lust, and thereby sinning. preferring that we could be like him and not need a woman (or a man, depending on which you are) but if you cannot control this part of your personality, it is better to marry. i trust paul was adequately informed by the holy spirit as to the direction and content God wanted in his teachings.

the squirming i see, some of it quite intense, to get through what some seem to consider a loophole in the word of God, in an attempt to participate in or make an excuse for some activity or attitude, disturbs me. i could accept it from a baby christian, if they were guided to the right path, but from someone that represents him or herself as an established christian, it disturbs me alot. especially in this time in which we are seeing apostasy in the church reaching pitiful proportions and many being pulled away from the truth by false teachers and doctrines.

Edited April 29, 2006 by dakota190

[dakota190]

Someone has said that the institution of marriage is the backbone of our culture and the source of its decay. Does anyone on this thread believe that is true?

in the bible, God created marriage before he created the church, and you know how highly esteemed the church is in God's eyes, and i believe marriage was the backbone of our culture, but it is the decay of society that is the source of decay in marriage. if you want to dispute the fact i gave pertaining to marriage being created before the church. when God created eve for adam, i think that giving her a rib would be a commitment beyond the exchanging of gold bands, don't you?

(this last was tongue in cheek)

Edited April 29, 2006 by dakota190

[vitality22004]

Well if the family is the unit of society, then the absence of marriage from a society threatens its existence...because underpinning the family is a parental unit that is stable, committed and enduring...and marriage as a pattern cannot be topped as a formula for the kind of covenant relationship that is necessary. The high divorce rate aside, marraige is the best protection afforded to spouses and children alike and it is these bonds that foster a sense of belonging and contribute to the cultural value system of any society.

[suzanagimpel]

I Corinthians 7:9

But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Sometimes, we have tobe Black and white when we speak the oracles of the word of God.

As a minister if you tell the truth in love God will not hold you guilty.

But if you twist the truth just so people wouldn't leave the church than you are sining against the people and against God at the same time.

Remember that of teachers more will be required of them.

Love, Suzana

[Sweet Servent]

Friday June 20, 2003

Modern wedding customs date back to biblical times

MARLENA THOMPSON

Jewish Telegraphic Agency

NEWTON, Mass. -- According to Jewish law, getting married is an exceedingly simple affair: The bride accepts something worth more than a dime (in today's currency) from the groom, the groom utters words of acquisition and consecration, these two actions are witnessed, and voila, the happy couple is married. All the rest -- the white gown, the veil, the portable chuppah (wedding canopy), etc. -- are but customs that have grown up around Jewish weddings through the ages. This is not to diminish their importance, for customs add measureless beauty and meaning to lifecycle milestones. Today, in fact, some of the most ancient practices are being rediscovered and "renovated" by couples seeking to blend tradition with a modern outlook on marriage.

One of the most enduring wedding customs, the wearing of the veil, has its origins in the Bible. Upon seeing her husband-to-be, Isaac, for the first time, Rebecca "took her veil and covered herself." (Genesis 25:65) Another veiling custom, bedecken (the veiling of the bride by the groom just before the wedding), also has biblical roots.

Those familiar with the story of Jacob and his two wives, Leah and Rachel, will remember how Jacob's father-in-law, Laban, tricked Jacob into marrying Leah instead of his beloved Rachel by veiling Leah heavily before the wedding. By placing the veil over the bride's face, a Jewish groom makes sure he doesn't repeat Jacob's mistake.

A lawful Jewish marriage requires an act of kinyan (that the bride be given -- and that she accept -- something of nominal value from the groom). In ancient times, coins were typically given. (They are still used by many Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews). Since the seventh century, rings replaced coins in most of Europe as the "gift of choice." According to Jewish law, the ring must belong to the groom, be of solid metal, and be free of gems. (The inclusion of precious stones produces significant variations in ring values, which, presumed the rabbis, could cause a bride to reconsider.)

Another ancient custom that has lately been transformed is the ketubah (marriage contract).

Spelling out a husband's obligations to his wife, the ketubah was a radical document in its day because it provided women with legal status and rights in marriage. Many couples who consider the traditional ketubah as out of touch with contemporary views on relationships are creating new ones. Many ketubot now include parallel declarations of commitment made by both bride and groom with a joint declaration of faith in God and a connection to the Jewish people.

The chuppah (canopy) under which the bride and groom stand during the ceremony symbolizes a marriage chamber. The bride leaves her father's house and enters her husband's home as a married woman.

Although wedding customs may be cherished simply because of the history and tradition they represent, ultimately what keeps them alive is their relevance in a changing world. Ancient wedding customs imbued with a modern spirit provide couples with both a link to the past and a hand in shaping the future they will be sharing.

I saw this article and thought it was interesting.

Kate

________________________________________________________________________

In my years of trying to be an effective minister, I often find myself ministering to people living together, co-habitating, or as my dad calls it "shacking up". This thread is not about is it sinful? I think we know that it is. This thread concerns the process as ministers (which we all are) of helping someone sort through the confusion they have created for themselve by living as married when they are not. I often encounter backslidden Christians in these situations and financially unable to live separate in their own estimation, and sometimes even with children. I have run into situations of a new Christians needing to deal with either marrying someone they now see different, but they 5 plus years in the relationship and children together. More often, I find people who haven't married because their estranged spouse will not give them a divorce. I have found older people living together because if they get married they will lose public assistance. I hope I have explained the mirky waters of this modern dilema which is getting worse and not better. What sort of advice would you give? What is the church's responsibility?

[irishcowboy]

ummmm,

if the Spirit of God has started convicting them, then they are aware of what is going on in the spirit world.

as Paul said, it is better to marry then it is to burn.....

aonther thing that was written is that we are to refrain from the appearance of doing evil....

the excuss is that we are not doing anything, just sharing a dwelling.... like i said, this is an excuss for trying to circumvent what is instructed of us.....

we have allowed one person of the couple to stay with us until they were able to get things arranged to be married...

some times the excuss is used..... well, i dont know if this is the right person, so we do not want to commit to anything yet.....

again, excusses.... funny how they dont want to commit to anything that will tie them together for the rest of their lives, but they have a child with this non-commitment.....

some will use the excuss that they are common law.... but when the going gets rough, one gets going...... no commitment to stick it out.....

show them in black and white ( or red and white ) where it tells us taht we are to refrain from the appearance.... this does not mean a person is innocent or guilty of any wrong doing, but it does give a poor witness....

mike

[Smalcald]

In my years of trying to be an effective minister, I often find myself ministering to people living together, co-habitating, or as my dad calls it "shacking up". This thread is not about is it sinful? I think we know that it is. This thread concerns the process as ministers (which we all are) of helping someone sort through the confusion they have created for themselve by living as married when they are not. I often encounter backslidden Christians in these situations and financially unable to live separate in their own estimation, and sometimes even with children. I have run into situations of a new Christians needing to deal with either marrying someone they now see different, but they 5 plus years in the relationship and children together. More often, I find people who haven't married because their estranged spouse will not give them a divorce. I have found older people living together because if they get married they will lose public assistance. I hope I have explained the mirky waters of this modern dilema which is getting worse and not better. What sort of advice would you give? What is the church's responsibility?

One thing I have done is to take a positive spin on this. A couple I knew who I counseled on this topic talked about it and simply realized that the guy was not really ready to make a lifelong commitment. He did move out and date, but made a commitment to wait for marriage to have sex. They eventually did get married. I think we can also use data. Co-habitation is negatively correlated with life long marriage. People who live together prior to marriage are more likely to divorce. Many couples think it is a good test for marriage, but in reality it hurts their chances in marriage. Co-habitation is particularly dangerous for children. The reason being is that co-habitation break-ups are even higher than our divorce rates. So the odds are heavily stacked, well below 50/50 that a co-habitating couple will stay together, why hurt kids in that way, coming to know a father figure than losing him?

Why are they not married is the first question? Marriage in our society is easy, so if they have not married one of the parties is obviously not committed as fully to a life long commitment. It is easy to make promises alone, but much more difficult to make legal and spiritual promises in front of family, friends and God. So if they are not married, the question is why not? Without a doubt you will find in most cases one of the parties really wants to get married, the other is not sure. Really what you get with living together is the hard part of marriage with none of the benefits.

Also this claptrap about what is a marriage is total bunk. We know what marriage is, we don't need some twisted excuse for some guy who does not want to commit, then claiming they are married "in truth". If you want to get married put you money where you mouth is, stand up and be a man about it. Go to a Christian church you are both members of, make a public lifelong vow of fidelity to this one person, publicly ask God for this union and to be in this union, and tell your parents, your friends and your family about this union which joins you spiritually, financially and legally. If you can't do that you are not married nor do you want to be married. Give me a break on this not knowing what marriage is as an excuse to shake up. If you don't want the legal benefits to marriage fine, but I would be very suspicious of anyone who would pass up on the legal benefits of marriage because they take about an hour to get at the court house and they are good benefits. Likely they are worried about the legal hassles of divorce. (david I know you know this I was responding to the other posters about that)