|
Post by jxr on May 2, 2006 7:23:12 GMT -5
This thought just crossed my mind:
The F&W eschew any form of religious documentation relating to one's conversion or baptism (i.e. no baptismal certificate - I have heard F&W sermons ridiculing such worldly documents). However, when it comes to marriage, it has to be done by the book, stamped, signed and certified, even if de-facto relationships have equivalent status in current western society.
Does this make any sense? It doesn't to me. Surely if a public declaration committing our life to God is sufficient spiritually, then a similar public declaration of commitment to one's partner would be equally adequate?
|
|
|
Post by when on May 2, 2006 17:11:50 GMT -5
This thought just crossed my mind: The F&W eschew any form of religious documentation relating to one's conversion or baptism (i.e. no baptismal certificate - I have heard F&W sermons ridiculing such worldly documents). However, when it comes to marriage, it has to be done by the book, stamped, signed and certified, even if de-facto relationships have equivalent status in current western society. Does this make any sense? It doesn't to me. Surely if a public declaration committing our life to God is sufficient spiritually, then a similar public declaration of commitment to one's partner would be equally adequate? when it is done by marriage the law requires it a baptismal certificate is not required by law not hard to work out when one thinks about it a little
|
|
|
Post by jxr on May 3, 2006 5:41:24 GMT -5
When what is done by marriage? What does the law require marriage for?
I think you missed my point entirely. I was commenting on the social status afforded to couples married under statute law, as distinct to those who are in common law marriage situation. There is markedly different social status given to these two cases.
I am commenting that the F&W judge a statute marriage to have higher repute over a common law marriage, yet have an entirely different attitude when assessing one's spiritual commitment to God.
Why would there be any distinction?
If you requested to see proof of a F&W's professing status (papers please!), you would receive a pointed remark that a documentation is not required, as it is obvious by their behaviour (and/or dress/bun etc). Why shouldn't this standard of status be afforded to a common law marriage?
|
|
|
Post by just me on Aug 19, 2006 18:20:52 GMT -5
The only logical thing I can think of that a marriage by certificate is recognized as legal by law, and therefore the 2x2's or whatevertheygoby would also recognize it as legal and "ordained", whereas a "common law" marriage is not always recognized as a legal marriage and is often looked upon as 'living together" "shacked up" livin in sin"
|
|
|
Post by common law on Aug 19, 2006 21:36:39 GMT -5
What is a common law marriage?
|
|
|
Post by reply on Aug 19, 2006 21:45:03 GMT -5
The essential distinctions of a common law marriage are:
-Common law marriages are not licensed by government authorities. -Common law marriages are not necessarily solemnized. -There is no public record of a common law marriage (i.e., no marriage certificate). -Cohabitation alone does not amount to common law marriage; the couple in question must hold themselves out to the world to be husband and wife. -In some jurisdictions, a couple must have cohabited and held themselves out to the world as husband and wife for a minimum length of time for the marriage to be recognised as valid.
Perhaps the cohabitation before the marriage becomes recognized is what displeases the workers.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Aug 20, 2006 6:41:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 20, 2006 6:42:08 GMT -5
The F&W try so hard not to be conformed to the world, but yet they comply with the IRS, Medicare, and SSA in the USA, vehicle licensing requirements, insurance requirements, they pay required taxes, register to vote, sign marriage certificates, comply with city codes, building codes and utility deposits, speed limits, school and college requirements, job qualifications, immunization obligations, etc...........
Being "separate" from the world would be to resist, reject and refuse all those.....wouldn't it?
Howard
|
|
|
Post by withopeneyes (Mandy) on Aug 20, 2006 14:51:13 GMT -5
Eh, I know some who don't really comply with IRS, Taxes, city codes, etc etc.
As for common law marriage-
In some states, if you live together for a period of time (sometimes this is a year, two years, whatever the state decides) as a couple- you have a common law marriage.
Nowdays, we see courts recognizing this undocumented union due to the fact that many couples are living together, having children together, purchasing items (homes, cars, etc) together before (or without ever) tying the knot. Then they decide they don't want to stay together and... hmm, who gets what?
Therefore, things are split (more likely, things are fought over, demanded, and argued about in court) as if you were married and are now divorcing.
|
|
BC
Senior Member
Posts: 852
|
Post by BC on Aug 20, 2006 17:32:00 GMT -5
When what is done by marriage? What does the law require marriage for? I think you missed my point entirely. I was commenting on the social status afforded to couples married under statute law, as distinct to those who are in common law marriage situation. There is markedly different social status given to these two cases. I am commenting that the F&W judge a statute marriage to have higher repute over a common law marriage, yet have an entirely different attitude when assessing one's spiritual commitment to God. Why would there be any distinction? If you requested to see proof of a F&W's professing status (papers please!), you would receive a pointed remark that a documentation is not required, as it is obvious by their behaviour (and/or dress/bun etc). Why shouldn't this standard of status be afforded to a common law marriage? JXR, The bible states many times about marriage. How that should two find themselves unable to avoid the attraction of each other that they should then marry. To marry then comes under the law, to follow Christ we must do as he told us and that was to fulfill the law. If we are of Christ then we will fulfill the law and then some. Jesus Never told anyone to not worry about something because it was only the law. As far as common marriage Goes it is and was and always has/will be against the teaching of Jesus. To make it recognized in the law is only a very new and modern way of thinking. Men everywhere try to change things to the prevailing way of thinking at the time, this doesn't make it right with God. As far as our fellowship goes I believe it would be a very sad day if ever the total sanctity of marriage is cast aside. As far as documented proof of having Christ as our leader and professing Christianity. Being a Christian is between God and ourselves, nothing to do with any other person. Marriage on the other hand is a very public thing between two people, the law and also sanctified by God. Also it is signified publicly by wearing a wedding ring. [shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 20, 2006 17:55:53 GMT -5
What seems to be missed over and over in this thread is that there is a reason common law marriages are called marriages rather than "arrangements" or "agreements" or "contracts". Common law marriages do fulfill the law--at least where they are recognized by the law (that's the tricky part). The essence of common law marriage is that you are not just living together, but you are literally presenting the other person to the world as your husband or your wife. If you live in a place where common law marriage is recognized, you can file joint tax returns and I believe get most if not all of the legal benefits that you would if you had a marriage license. You can even wear a ring if you want. And if you or your common law spouse wants a divorce, you can legally divorce just like "real" married people.
|
|
|
Post by scottishviking on Aug 21, 2006 2:47:48 GMT -5
[quote author=HUCK board=general thread=1146572592 post=1156074128]The F&W try so hard not to be conformed to the world, but yet they comply with the IRS, Medicare, and SSA in the USA, vehicle licensing requirements, insurance requirements, they pay required taxes, register to vote, sign marriage certificates, comply with city codes, building codes and utility deposits, speed limits, school and college requirements, job qualifications, immunization obligations, etc...........
Being "separate" from the world would be to resist, reject and refuse all those.....wouldn't it?
Howard[/quote][/color]
Howard, i think this comes under the "render to ceaser..." bit
|
|
|
Post by sjg on Aug 21, 2006 8:47:02 GMT -5
And why is it that most workers do not perform the marriage ceremony....they leave that to some other "worldly" person? You'd think they'd be opposed to that....that somehow having that "outside" involvement would make marriage certificate null and void!!
|
|
|
Post by seekingtruth on Aug 21, 2006 9:13:35 GMT -5
I think "render to ceaser" has to do with the way things are divided up in divorce
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Aug 21, 2006 18:51:14 GMT -5
Visualize this: a man and wife profess in workers' gospel meetings. They are married to each other by their commitment to their relationship, but not by legal document. How would anyone know unless they advertised it. Okay, someone asks how long they have been married and one replies, "Oh, we're not married. We just live together." Well. I guess that they said the truth. Otherwise, there is a time that they forged their commitment to fidelity and pledged their love to each other.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 21, 2006 18:56:49 GMT -5
Maybe instead they could say, "We made that choice ___ years ago." I don't think anyone would ask to see the license.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Aug 21, 2006 19:03:59 GMT -5
You made my point--more clearly than I. Either there is a commitment or there is not.
|
|
|
Post by just me on Aug 21, 2006 19:16:08 GMT -5
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm how bout this: if marriage is just a state of commitment, and the certificate doesnt mean anything, then it would seem that a divorce decree would be JUST as meaningless, hence, therefore a "comon law" marriage would be a way to get around that pesky "divorce is a sin" thang, shack up, then when you get tired of them split up. No marriage, NO divorce hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm now whatcha gonna do? Cant have it both ways folks. I marriage certificate is an outward demonstration and symbol of YOUR commitment to your spouce, just as much as your wedding ring is an outward symbol that YOU are committed to someone. shackin up is shackin up is shackin up, NO commitment
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 21, 2006 20:22:44 GMT -5
Have you studied the history of common law marriage? It came into being when there was no separation of church and state...when, in some cases, the church was the state and the only recognized marriages were ones performed by a priest (state official).
So the question is in this day and age, what does the certificate mean? Does it mean an unnecessary tie to the civil government? Is foregoing a civil ceremony performed by a judge and recorded by the government a political statement?
This is erroneous thinking. If there is a marriage, whether a certificate exists or a common law status is recognized, there can be a divorce. There can be alimony. There can be division of property.
A marriage certificate is a piece of paper. It can be as meaningful and symbolic as the couple decide to make it...or not. Some people are able to make a commitment and stay together with that piece of paper and some aren't; some are able to do the same thing without it and some aren't.
|
|
|
Post by just me on Aug 21, 2006 20:59:57 GMT -5
AHHHHHHHHHHHHH BUT, that "piece of paper" is proof of commitment, that piece of paper is the document that allows us to show that we have indeed commited ourselves to another. Sure its possible to be commited to another without being married, and the marriage commitment is ONLY as strong as the people who are in the marriage. On the other hand, how many times have a couple hit a rough spot in their marriage and opted to work through it because they felt a divorce was NOT an option for them? ? Had they not been legally married, whats to say they would try??? If you are not legally bound to your partner, WHY work at the relationship??? Heck, if it gets too rough, just bail out, its NOT like you are married.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 21, 2006 21:17:47 GMT -5
Um, because you're spiritually and emotionally bound to each other and before God? Because you're committed to the person and the relationship? Those sound like good reasons to me. If you don't have those reasons keeping you together, a piece of paper that says you're married isn't going to stop you from getting another piece of paper granting you a divorce.
|
|
|
Post by just me on Aug 21, 2006 21:28:44 GMT -5
If you are spiritually bound, AND emotionally bound THEN why NOT let the world KNOW it by having a ceremony with a signed certificate? Spiritually and emotionally bound people split up everyday, MANY of those choose to gut it out because they have publically commited to keep their marriage vows and everytime they see their marriage certificate, its a reminder.
|
|
|
Post by just me on Aug 21, 2006 21:32:42 GMT -5
Hey MRLEO
I am curious as to your username
Are you in law enforcement or is LEO your name??
No joke to follow, no set-up for a cheapshot, just curious
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 21, 2006 22:03:36 GMT -5
I don't know about you, but my parents gutted it out without waving their marriage licenses in each others' face every time they had a fight. That's because they were emotionally and spiritually bound to each other regardless of their civil ceremony. No, I am not in law enforcement...I don't get the connection...is Leo a nickname for law enforcement where you come from? p.s. I'm a little slow...we'll blame the relatively late hour rather than my age, okay? Law Enforcement Officer
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Aug 22, 2006 7:44:09 GMT -5
BUT, that "piece of paper" is proof of commitment, that piece of paper is the document that allows us to show that we have indeed commited ourselves to another. That piece of paper is a contract between three parties. The husband, wife and the state. It's purpose is to guarantee that the state will recognise the union, and give the couple any benefits that the state happens to afford a married couple. Any other function for a marriage certificate is an afterthought. Consider how few times you have ever had to make use of the certificate. That really signifies its value.
|
|
|
Post by just me on Aug 22, 2006 17:39:29 GMT -5
touche'
Well fellas I reckon we could go round and round till the cows come home ( ever wonder just WHERE the cows are coming home from??? ) however I am going to gracefully bow out.
Near as I can tell there really isnt a right nor wrong answer so there can be no "winner" in the end, I am NOT conceding my point, just no longer interested in the debate.
Good day gentlemen
OBTW, my parents celebrated their 45th anniversery this past spring, so yea they gutted it out through thick and thin
|
|
|
Post by hrl on Aug 23, 2006 17:42:40 GMT -5
FYI........the cows come home when they are in need of greener pastures ......... or .......... errr .......... good hay and water .... when the 'pasture' starts to get sparse.
|
|
|
Post by just me on Aug 23, 2006 22:10:56 GMT -5
FYI........the cows come home when they are in need of greener pastures ......... or .......... errr .......... good hay and water .... when the 'pasture' starts to get sparse. Gotta love it man ;D ;D ;D I have lost count of the times I have dropped that line and had it gone unnoticed or at least not responded to
|
|