In particular I think that an individual with a marriage license that wants to legalize his marriage with a second wife should attempt to obtain a marriage license for wife #2 while openly disclosing that he is already legally married to wife #1. When he is refused a marriage license for wife #2 he could then file suit against the state and challenge the constitutionality of the bigamy and anit-polygamy laws.
With all due respect to Scarecrow, I would give a slightly different view on this. But before I do let me add that brother Scarecrow is indeed a sharp brother and one that I think has much wisdom to offer many. Even his point here is on target when speaking strictly of a legal sense in regard to the logic of it. In theory it would be legitimate to go this route if we were speaking only of legal issues. And he may even be right that a federal judge or appeals court at the federal level might overrule the bigamy statutes. Although the case in Texas might not be a good case to place much hope in as it has some issues in it that might hinder it from being a case that sets forth a healthy view of the family life.
In any case, and in a slight contrast to brother Scarecrow, there is a slight revision here that I think must be considered. Brother Scarecrow is playing in a symphony and I love his symphony! However, I notice a few ideas/instrumentalists so to speak that are apparently not harmonizing exactly as they ought to be.
First, as a Christian we must examine Scripture too, not just use a legal theory, and it likely could be that such a move to deliberately do that could cross the line of disrespect for the ruling authorities. I would almost invariably argue that this is not the best way, at least not a believer who wants to live a quiet and peaceful life before the ruling authorities. This type of approach can easily be an aggressive act that can often come forth from the heart of pride, even if only a slight degree of pride it might backfire due to it not being blessed by the wisdom and power of the Spirit. Judges are human and such a move might be read as an intentional effort to stir up trouble which might indeed go against what Paul said in 1 Tim. 2:2 and what Peter said in 2:13-17.
Additionally, along those lines, it is offensive to the culture at large. By that I mean we have to examine Paul's teaching in Romans 14 where he teaches us it is better not to do anything that offends another. The culture largely has spoken through the existing legislative laws. Using a political maneuver to overturn that is likely to be offensive to the masses.
But, on the other hand, there are millions of people today who cohabit together and very few people want to prosecute those people. Thus we can see there is a cultural vacuum there that can be insight into a directional move as to where the Spirit is at work. Since most people do not think cohabitation in and of itself is criminal there is more support culturally for people to be able to personally choose their own living conditions as they so please without the authorization or licensure from the government. Thus with millions (8 to 10 million) living that way and millions more who likely practice that it is a sign as to which route might be the best way to work, which seems to be towards deregulation instead of making a new regulation.
But, I'm sure knowing Scarecrow's sharp mind and many others here have such a sharpness in their mental acuity that it is likely someone or several are thinking, but are you not making a case based upon a consequentialist ethic. In a sense I am and admit that. But Proverbs 21:1 tells us the King's heart is in the hand of the Lord. Thus, if our motives are wrong then God may not turn the "king/judge's" heart in favor of the one who intentionally tries to use the system in that way. Thus, we have a duty to examine motives and the possible outcomes of actions carried out with improper motives.
But then, even if the first point above is not convincing, I must ask this as a second point, is it really the best goal overall to even be fighting over a term, especially one that even if we did gain a right to would still reflect an ideology that is not in line with a biblical ideology? I find that to spend hours upon hours with millions of dollars to simply place the government as the one who authorizes what God "joins together" to be somewhat unsettling to me (see Matt 19:6).
For example, in many states there is a "no fault divorce" law. How can any honest Christian ever accept that? I do not see how even a monogamous Christian who rightly understands his Bible can go down to the court and obtain a license for a type of marriage that in and of itself is grounded in a law code that says anyone can leave for just any reason and it be legal and within the bounds of acceptability. That to me is not acceptable nor is it something I want to go fight to obtain the right unto. It certainly conflicts with the biblical standard.
Also, furthermore to go ask the courts to rule to give a license is to imply that the government, instead of the person and families or overseers, is the one who truly has the right to authorize a union. Is that where we want to go? I don't think so, especially since that license is also the same license that will likely be the one used for the coupling of homosexuals under the same name, the name of marriage.
In other words, if the word marriage in society becomes the standard social term which includes men with men then why do we want to fight to gain rights to a term that does not show what we really believe? That seems off key to me, like an instrumentalist who is indeed in the symphony or orchestra but playing off tune.
There seems to be a better way. The term "marriage" either needs to be removed from the state's hands all together and they need to simply function with neutral non-religious terms, like contractual union or personal union or something of the like, and let the people define their unions as they so wish by their religious views or philosophical views.
Or we as saints, even those who are in monogamy or polygyny, need to use new terms that differ with the statist terms that have now evolved into a meaning that no longer agrees with the biblical terms. Words like "my man," "my woman," "Biblical Union, Covenant Union" or many other terms capture the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek concept, and probably even better than the terms used in the legal codes today that have Romanist ideology in them as well as even secular humanism in them.
Thus, to go through all of that, which might mean huge expenses and many years of life to just gain the right to use a term and get a license that really does not reflect the biblical view to begin with seems to me to be offbeat. Noble quest? Sure! It is grounded in a desire to grant something to those who want to live a biblical lifestyle. But does it really grant what one hopes? Respectable? Absolutely, and even one could argue a touch of brilliance in crafty thought.
But still with those accolades the better position seems to be to stand for each person having the liberty to be joined without a license so long as it is consensual adults. That position gains more ground, more freedom, and avoids the bitter war with the way to properly define a union that incites so many people to anger. When offending the authorities and culture one often loses the ability to speak with credibility towards the bigger need, salvation from sin in Christ Jesus. Why offend so many and in doing so lose the opportunity to have a credible witness to the gospel unto them?
Indeed a good case can be made that unions made by people needs to have some type of contract with it that is backed by the force of law. Many people today are making co-habitation contracts that are enforced in the civil courts when things turn south with the contracted parties. That is indeed acceptable and even wise. That route though still does not give the implication that to be joined one must go get permission from a government civil authority. Unions in the biblical days were created by God in his providence, brought together through the families or by the persons and/or spiritual leaders, not by some King, or civil government authority. To force the issue in that light might just create another set of problems unforeseen, maybe even worse than what existed before. Too it places us back into the position of where we are today, the embracing a term and license that really does not reflect the position and definition of how biblical unions form.
If the whole world next week turns to the idea that a homosexual man to man union is what is properly called a marriage, well then I will not be ruffled. I'll just re-translate the Bible to say: "all those in marriages will not be in the kingdom of heaven." And then I'll re-translate all of the Hebrew and Greek texts to say: "a man and woman who joins together in covenant," and I will use the terms "my man" and "my woman" in translating those phrases that contextually point to a biblical or Christian or natural union.
No matter how the world changes in their definitions the Bible and the words in it do not evolve. They have a fixed meaning in a historical setting and it is a simple re-translation project to fix what years of language deterioration can do in the public sphere.
Thus, I find this route to be a better route than the year after year fight in the legal sector over terms, especially a set of terms that would still need to be authorized to be used by an official not authorized to bring together the people the Lord is bringing together.
But having said that, I still want to make it clear that I still enjoy Scarecrow's orchestra! The music he plays and offers is stable and smooth overall. So I say none of that to discredit his other tunes in regard to his ideas and efforts in seeking to stand for biblical truth in this area and others. More than not he is on target though in my opinion with this approach, or one tune, slightly offbeat as it sounds to me.
:lol: Oh my.....lol....I might differ with both of you in part and agree in part with both you. 