• 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.

A Precarious Situation

truthfinder1967

truthfinder1967

New Member
2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Good Evening Brothers and Sisters,

There may be some on this site that are fully aware of this passage, and have used it on more occasions to prove or disprove a point of issue or contention. Looking at this verse and its true meaning, I would like to put forth the following. Most, if not all here, would like to see plural marriages recognized but the state. Now granted, the only one it counts being recognized by is God. Yet one of the perks of being recognized by the state is that we can openly run our lives without fear of retribution by the Government. If it were recognized by the government, it would be no awkward thing to have both (or more) of your wives meeting you for lunch at your work. Some here have to watch who they associate with because of where they work and who they work for. There are some here that have kids, and are afraid of losing them. These are just a couple of good reason to have recognition by the state for plural marriages.

Now comes the danger in getting this recognized, the reason for the post. If for example, we win recognition for plural marriages, scripturally, the only one that God blesses is one husband, many wives or polygyny. If we win recognition, then we open a Pandora’s Box of other possibilities that are not blessed by God. Polyandry, one wife with many husbands, homosexuality having multiple partners as well as them having the right to marry other homosexuals, people marrying animals, and more. Looking at 2 Corinthians, do we really want to open the door to things that God forbids us is in the bible? Another question that arises is how do we get marriage defined by the state as a union between a man and a woman, and still retain the right that a man can have more than one wife? How do we get recognized for more than one spouse, and still keep it polygyny and not polyandry? Is it even possible for us to obtain this right through the state, and still keep within the light and not make it possible for other things to happen that are of the flesh?

We do not need the state to be married to more than one wife; all that is required is through scripture and the Grace of God. Having recognition through the state just makes things a bit easier when it comes to everyday life, and gets rid of some (not all) fears that some may have against such unions. These are just some things to discuss and ponder. Let us see if we can brainstorm and come up with a solution that would be beneficial, without negative consequences. A challenge for the age.

God Bless
 
Exactly right, TF67. I, and many others here, I know, don't have any interest in seeing "plural marriages recognized by the state", for these reasons. It's high time the church separates marriage by God, from marriage by the state, and how that has been, and will continue to be further, corrupted.

What I WOULD like to see is simply "decriminalization" of consenting-adult, non-contractual, self-proclaimed plural marriage. That's it. I don't care about government "recognition", but I don't want the government to care about my choosing to define my relationships as "marriage". Pretty crazy that our use of that word makes it a potential crime. But Hugh Hefner (and the self-described "poly" community) use "girlfriends" (or other terms) and so have no worries. A word, and perhaps permanence of commitment, is what causes trouble now.
 
I have to agree with the idea of keeping the government out of marriage. However... (yes there is always a but :lol: )

Many people entering plural marriage are doing so after spending many years as a monogamous couple who are legally married. The lack of legal status for the second and subsequent wives creates so many problems with medical, insurance, estates etc not to mention the social issues.

I don't think polygynous men should be able to have it both ways. I think they should legally divorce their spouses and have all wives with an equal status, however for many couples such a suggestion might be the straw that breaks the first wives back or perhaps there is too much emotion tangled up in the legal marriage that they just can't bear to drop it etc, the reasons for clinging to a legal marriage are numerous but the result is the same.

So..i think if you're polygynous and not willing to remove the government from ALL your marriages then you should be in the trenches slugging it out for legal status.

Of course thats just my humble opinion..or at least my very best attempt at one ;)
 
Most, if not all here, would like to see plural marriages recognized but the state. Now granted, the only one it counts being recognized by is God.
Click to expand...

Like Nathan, TF'67, I'm NOT one who has any interest in having The State "recognize" me, or my marriages, at all. (Somehow I can't help but think that those who settle for "legal" already "have their reward".) I serve God, and not Caesar - and have gotten pretty disgusted with a State that consistently ignores its own "law", calls good evil, and evil good , and by all accounts simply hates God and tries to replace Him. There's good reason that He warns us to "come out of her", and be not partakers of her plagues.

And it's not just all of my marriages that I want that false god removed from, Melanie. I'd just as soon have no fellowship whatsoever with the 'unfruitful works of darkness'. There was perhaps a time when the issue was not so clear cut. But one simply cannot serve God and another master.

Blessings,

Mark
 
Nathan7 said:
What I WOULD like to see is simply "decriminalization" of consenting-adult, non-contractual, self-proclaimed plural marriage. That's it. I don't care about government "recognition", but I don't want the government to care about my choosing to define my relationships as "marriage". Pretty crazy that our use of that word makes it a potential crime. But Hugh Hefner (and the self-described "poly" community) use "girlfriends" (or other terms) and so have no worries. A word, and perhaps permanence of commitment, is what causes trouble now.
Click to expand...

So true Brother, so True. Just decriminalization, will take a burden off those who are already in a plural marriage. One of the things that has been on my mind for awhile, was the now dead marriage amendment. I was all for this, designating marriage as just a union between man and woman. The only downside to this amendment would have been the plural marriage aspect. The amendment would have read, "one man to one woman". Like I said, that particular amendment would have been detrimental to the truth.

Another aspect is this, marriage is an instituion of God. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. When there are news reports and stories about this state and that state, making same sex unions as "marriage", it really goes against the grain. Its the same as if you see and ad or show, or hear something someone says that is derogatory towards the Lord God High, it gets the blood pumping. I rather not live in Sodom or Gommora. :)
 
Two points. Nathan wrote "A word, and perhaps permanence of commitment is what causes trouble" I agree. Perhaps there is too much emphasis on these covenant, vowed, written agreements. If God did it, why try to add to the foundation to attract persecution. And in scripture not every relationship was called a wife. What is wrong with "girlfriend", "live in" (who knows how permanent), concubine was used. But a freedom for (adults only) self-determined freedom to end an undesired relationships might be accepted. I am not saying that is the most scriptural approach, but legally no one should be implied unable to stop a relationship, and thus it would be hard to establish a motive of permanence (to coin a phrase)

The second point is that people that wish for decriminalization should not burden themselves feeling a more conducive legal environment also helps other alternate lifestyles. We all travel on public highways paid for by all taxpayers. Unless a poly-theocracy is desired, freedom is better, and freedom may fall on everyone.
 
Your points re: 'other words than wife' are important, welltan, although I would remind all here that living in a police state which elevates itself above God is always a problem.

When it comes to destruction, and the attempt to separate "what God has joined", the State no longer cares whether you call something "marriage", or Covenant, or a wife, or even "tawdry affair". (See some of my other earlier posts for some gruesooume details.) They will claim the power, by force of arms, to destroy relationships and even prevent all communication whatsoever -- and it can be through no evidence of fault as well. It's much easier to concoct charges later, once all involved are under extreme duress, anyway.

The ONLY true recourse we have is in Him.


Blessings,
Mark
 
I believe that the "state" should not be involved in marriage at any level. That means that I don't believe we should get tax breaks for marriages. It means that I believe we should all be able to get our own health insurance at a reasonable cost. It means that I believe the husbands should plan their estates and leave wills that protect all members of their families. I believe that no one should be able to tell me what to do with my children (if I had any) and I believe that if I die I should be able to leave those children in the care of whom I chose.

That said, reality is that T has been married to Pastor Randy for 35 years. In that time she has not had to work very much. So she depends on Pastor Randy for her insurance. As we get older it becomes more and more difficult to acquire insurance and I don't believe that just because I became part of the family that she should no longer have insurance. I get mine through my employer and if I ever become unemployed Randy assures me that we will make sure I have coverage. Ditto with life insurance. A husband has a duty to protect his entire family in the event of his untimely death.

Just because we added a wife to our family doesn't mean an end to their marriage. It is the beginning of our marriage and things should be equal from that point on, but the scripture specifically says that if a husband takes another wife, the first wife's food, raiment and duty of marriage cannot be diminished. Well there wasn't medical insurance in those days, but I consider that to be part of her livlihood. A husband cannot take away from the first wife in order to have the second wife.


Sweet LIssa
 
I would never suggest that any wife go without to accommodate more wives. However, there is no need to go without anything just because one obtains a legal divorce. Lots of marriage settlements these days take into account things like superannuation (retirement investments) marital contributions and insurance.

If one really believes that the state is irrelevant in their marriage why would a legal divorce end it?

I have no problem with people keeping their legal marriages if they wish, i have no problem with that at all. My personal opinion, is that it would be hypocritical of anyone to claim that they do not believe the state should be involved in marriages while maintaining their own legal marriage contract, even just for the sack of convenience, sometimes principals are inconvenient. By all means folks should keep their marriages if they want but perhaps should abstain from doing anything that may hinder those who do support legal recognition.

In regards to decriminalization, is it currently unlawful anywhere to live as a family with any number of consenting adults? Usually polygamists are charged under laws relating to child abuse, welfare fraud rather than the act of polygamy alone. The government tends to leave polygamy itself alone.
 
If one really believes that the state is irrelevant in their marriage why would a legal divorce end it?
Click to expand...

There is a lot more to this question than meets the eye, Melanie.

What is important to remember is that God tells us that we must honor our contracts, the words from our mouths - whether we later like it or not. Examples in the Bible abound, but the one that I find most poignant is in Joshua, and is the story of the Gibeonites. God told Israel to make NO treaty with the inhabitants of the land, and they were even DECEIVED into the treaty (remember the old wineskins, dry bread, dusty ole sandals, and so on...)

But the lesson God taught was clear: You made your own bed, now lie in it. Generations later, King David and Solomon were held to the terms of that treaty - even though it was based in fraud!

Those who enter into a "deal with the devil" (be it a marriage ordained by the State, or something from Damn Yankees :eek: ) cannot simply repudiate it on their own. Much more could be said at this point; ultimately it simply bears repeating that such debts, which we CANNOT pay, have been handled for us by our Kinsman-Redeemer.

I have argued (in other divorce-specific threads here) that what is created by the State can be dissolved by the State (in some cases, a process of revocation is possible.) "What God has joined, let man not rend asunder". But what Caesar creates, according to his twisted process, he can dissolve in his courts as well.

Blessings,

Mark





PS> RE: The government tends to leave polygamy itself alone.

I have noted that this is far LESS likely if "government" gets a whiff of something God-ordained. What is "left alone" -- SOMETIMES -- is sexual activity. Pragmatists are far safer (more likely to be left alone) if they convince the minions of the State that they are engaged merely in immoral (specifically, Biblically-negative) acts, and at increasing risk if they conclude that a man actually intends to PROVIDE for, take care of, or -- Beelzebub Forbid :twisted: -- COVER a woman in accord with God's Word!
 
Mark C said:
If one really believes that the state is irrelevant in their marriage why would a legal divorce end it?
Click to expand...

There is a lot more to this question than meets the eye, Melanie.

What is important to remember is that God tells us that we must honor our contracts, the words from our mouths - whether we later like it or not. ...

But the lesson God taught was clear: You made your own bed, now lie in it. Generations later, King David and Solomon were held to the terms of that treaty - even though it was based in fraud!
Click to expand...

If that is the case then how can a man with a legal marriage participate in plural marriage? If he must honor his past contracts even to the extent of keeping the legal contract intact, despite the fact that the marriage itself could remain exactly the same? If a man has made a vow to be monogamous as part of his legal contract then he is breaking it by taking another wife. If he really must keep to the original contract then he cannot participate in plural marriage.

There is nothing that cannot be provided for a wife within legal marriage that cannot be provided for her after a civil divorce. It may cost more it may be inconvenient but it's not impossible. So all i am suggesting is that those who say "The government should stay out of marriage...except for mine because it suits me at the moment" would probably be better off throwing their weight behind the cause to create some a legal recognition for all parties to a plural marriage even if it is just a way to formally recognize the complete plural family. It doesn't have to be legal marriage as we recognize it today.... It's an issue that divides the poly community and i really don't think we need even more divisions.

Do any US states recognize defacto or common law marriage for insurance or financial purposes?
 
If that is the case then how can a man with a legal marriage participate in plural marriage?
Click to expand...

That depends on what the exact terms of the so-called 'legal' marriage contract are. (And I would submit that most people who subject their 'marriage' to the dictates of Caesar don't even begin to understand THAT issue!) My suggestion to those inclined is, first - "study, to show yourself approved", and then nullify, rescind, revoke ("terms of art" vary by jurisdiction) that creation of the state - to "come out of her".

BTW, those men that have promised exclusivity ('cleave unto her ONLY', or similar) need to address that issue as well. If nothing else, such a Covenant would imply that a modification (permission, if you will) would be necessary before adding another wife.

There is nothing that cannot be provided for a wife within legal marriage that cannot be provided for her after a civil divorce.
Click to expand...

I'll go at least one step further, Melanie. There is NOTHING "provided" by Caesar that would not be BETTER provided by doing it according to God's perfect plan for us. At best what the State provides is (like most things from the prince of this world) a pale imitation of the Real; at worst (see "civil unions", "marriage amendment", and everything else that is on the obvious immediate abomination horizon :evil: ) they amount to a literal 'mark' of service to another master.

Do any US states recognize defacto or common law marriage for insurance or financial purposes?
Click to expand...

Yes - and it's a trap; a back-door way of getting a satanic 'foot in the door' of marriages which attempt to avoid the licensure pitfall. (The fact that the majority of such fall into other areas makes the method even more insidious. ;) ) Most "financial purposes" already have Caesar's image stamped on them, to use a well-known metaphor for the literal truth. If one want's "insurance", it can be had privately, and essentially anyone or anything can be handled that way -- at least until such freedom-oriented "loopholes" are ultimately extinguished and no one is able to "buy or sell" without "the mark".


Blessings in Him,

Mark
 
I took my second wife knowing full well that she was not going to be treated by the State as a wife. Last night as we sat around at our family meeting, the discussion went to emergency preparedness, and the death of any one of us. With pain I noted that my second wife would not get the spouses benefit from Social Security if I died. I just hated that moment, but we went on.

Still, I am in this land, I am not of it. I knew the penalties before going into it, and I made sure my second wife was just as committed as I was. We'll work around it, somehow.

I was able to make sure the property went to both spouses. In that I feel a bit more secure. And I will leave my family close to debt free.

~ rusty
 
Rusty,
Though I am not in a Biblical Family way...YET.....I tend to agree with you in that we as the husbands most do what we can, living where we do, to assure that our second and other wives ( if any ) are taken care of. I know, once "J" joins Rose and I , that I will seek out additional life insurance for the both of us. She really will not need me to support her financially, but as her "husband" I will be obligated to support her in any way possible. Thus as with you, should we jointly purchase any land, home etc. It will be set up to where they both get all of that should I pass on before they do.
 
Melanie said:
Do any US states recognize defacto or common law marriage for insurance or financial purposes?
Click to expand...

There are at least 50 exceptions to the following:

In the US, most States do accept common law marriages for most legal purposes. The requirements vary from State to State, but generally, if you live together as husband and wife, and present yourself publicly as husband and wife, you are considered as married.

But the law against bigamy can be applied to having two common law wives.

Also in most States, if you have a marriage license and a marriage certificate, you cannot live with another woman as husband and wife. You would be guilty of bigamy. There is no legal penalty in most States, though, for having a mistress or girl-friend while married.

Curious, no?

I think that legally in my State, as far as the law is concerned, I have a wife and a live-in girlfriend. That distresses me, just a little, and is certainly un-fair to my second wife. But we live and work within that definition.

~ rusty
 
I think that decriminalizing marriage is great, but I am not certain that is the best answer. The average family struggles with things like health insurance, death benefits, etc... So, it seems to me that we should think about this a little more. Scripture tells me to love my wife as Christ loves the Church. Does this mean that only one wife should get all the benefits (in the case of the still licensed wife) or should I ensure that all wives get similiar benefits? How can an average worker afford insurance for three wives and 8 or more children, for example? This would, in effect, elimate many men from being able to marry more than one wife. I am not pretending to have the answers here, but I do know that loving your wife/wives requires one to provide equally for all!!
 
buttttt..... it doesn't matter if the average man would have trouble providing financially for plural wives and subsequent children because plural marriage is not meant for the average man.

If every man was supposed to have more than one wife then we would have many men with 2 or more wives and many men with none at all. I don't think God would intend that, it would be kinda mean.
 
I've got to say to TF's original analogy that the locks are off the box ages ago, the laws against polyandry ect arn't nearly the calibure of thing to keep such abominations down. TF said in another thread that polygyny is a chance to be an example to the world around you, a chance to let the light shine. Its simply not safe to do that if the first person you rub the wrong way can have you arrested and break up you're family by force of law. Unless you want to hide under a bushel decriminialization is the least objective, and the considerations Mel brought up should be enough to warrant a desire for legalization.

That said on the premise that the law can hurt us, but it cannot effectively help us change people long term. The legal prevention of misdeeds only helps us so far as the law reflects what most people on the whole think like, in general people seem to put homosexuality AND polyandry on a higher level than polygyny. The best aim we can have is a govenrment that does not impede our outreach.
 
Melanie said:
buttttt..... it doesn't matter if the average man would have trouble providing financially for plural wives and subsequent children because plural marriage is not meant for the average man.

If every man was supposed to have more than one wife then we would have many men with 2 or more wives and many men with none at all. I don't think God would intend that, it would be kinda mean.
Click to expand...

Hi Mel,

I agree that plural marriage is not meant for everyone. I would think that most men would not marry more than one wife even if it was allowed. It is allowed in many countries today, and yet, less than 10% of the men in those countries have more than one wife. Some men do not like the idea of having more wives. It stresses them out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top