• 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.

Possibility of Arbitration Board for Plural Unions

Dr. K.R. Allen

Dr. K.R. Allen

Member
Real Person
I've been pondering something as of late.

In civil law we have something that most all contracts can be written to call for in case of some type of dispute. It is called an arbitration review board. Many times when contracts in business are signed they agree in the contract to have an arbitration board that will settle the disputes which will be binding on all parties, even binding in actual civil courts, should a conflict or breach occur.

Therefore, I have been thinking holistically here about how this might apply here. I am pondering if it is possible for us to develop a system whereby when a man takes a wife that a legal contract could developed with an arbitration clause and board that is mutually chosen by the couple that would be the arbitrators if something happened that led to a severe dispute and possibly a split among the parties.

I believe it is essential that we do everything we can as Christians to settle civil disputes outside of common civil courts of the land. The Bible makes this very clear in 1 Cor. 6:1-8.

The need for this is great when most courts will not recognize the type of unions as suggested and taught herein. With the reality of sin it is very possible that a person could be abused or put out unjustly without any recourse. In such cases it seems like an arbitration board or something could be of great value to couples entering into unions. If they voluntarily decided to have some type of civil agreement composed, and they could select some mature, godly, and wise people who would serve as arbitrators should something terrible go wrong then I think that would provide a deeper level of security and protection for each member in the relationship. Also, if this could be drawn up legally this type of union then would have the backing of the civil courts (and sword of the state if necessary) should the parties try and reject the authority of the arbitrators who review and make ruling on the matter.

As of right now when people enter such unions without this there is very little that protects the parties involved if something terrible happens due to the ravage nature of sin. For example, suppose John marries Brenda, Katie, and Helen. Then they all have one checking account together and John gets crazy and decides to leave his spouses to run off with a woman who is married to another man (adultery). He pulls out all of the money and leaves Helen, Katie, and Brenda, and the children, in a bad situation. As it stands, if there is no civil union recognized by the govt. the ladies are in most cases without recourse.

If there was a way we could all put our heads together to develop some type of system like this then I think this would provide a level of protection that is not currently available outside of the standard marriage license that is supported and recognized in civil/family courts today.

This would require a little time with a contract lawyer (I know some of you do not like the term or profession fo lawyer but please don't let thisissue derail the dicussion of the larger issue here) for the development of this and possibly some discussion among all herein on wise ways to build a template model that others could examine and consider for their own unions and famlies.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?

Dr. Allen
 
The difficulty in this is the different laws and interpretation of laws from state to state isn't it? Your States are more autonomous than our Provinces in general and even in our provinces Saskachewans protections don't necessarily apply in other provinces.
 
Dr. Keith, I totally agree with you on this matter. All parties need to be protected in this matter. 1Cor 6:1-11 presents a case for this. Without accountability abuses may easily occur. Objective arbitrators would be necessary to insure protection of all parties involved. The scripture does give men the right to plural wives but it also demands responsibility for the wives. If one is not balanced he might enjoy his right but neglect his responsibility. If one rejects this thought it may be a matter of pride. However, one should not fear accountability if he plans to fulfill his responsibilities. I have a personal friend who has taken such action with a lawyer insuring both wives and all the children would be taken care of if he should die. Now back to 1Cor 6:1-11. Paul is appealing for spiritual, wise, men to handle disputes among the body of believers. This raises another issue, just as we have had a deficient view of roles and functions of husbands and wives in marriage; it seems we have a deficient view of the roles and functions of the Elders in the church also. The working of this idea out would require a lot of prayer and study. I am on board with the idea but lack an immediate suggestion of its practical application at the moment.

Dr. Corey
 
Tlaloc said:
The difficulty in this is the different laws and interpretation of laws from state to state isn't it? Your States are more autonomous than our Provinces in general and even in our provinces Saskachewans protections don't necessarily apply in other provinces.
Click to expand...


Hummmmm.......good question. This why I would like to have someone with a JD degree to chime in and help us in this, especially if the focus for the JD degree was in contract law.

I'm not sure where you live and what laws apply to where you live.

However, from what I know in general I can speak in a limited sense that there is something called contract law and this law can be drawn up in something called a cohabitation agreement. Civil courts will honor all cohabitation agreements that I know of here in the 50 states of the union because this type if civil agreement is based on the legal premise of contract law. Couples who are not believers could even use that route, and many of them do who do not go through with the state licensure process.

However, this still does not answer the issue for the one in Christ. 1 Cor. 6 would even be a text that argues against two believers in dispute from taking that to a non-Christian civil court. Thus, we are back to the issue that if a believer marries/unites to his mate (one or several) then all of those in these types of unions have no civil authority or ecclesastical authority backing it here in the United States.

Consequently, if one spouse falls into severe sin it could destroy the entire family unit. Again, in example form, one partner leaves with all of the money, then other bills pile up and major fallout occurs economically. Some could even lose their home and place to live. Some could be homeless and without food. Those who have the state issued marriage license would be protected and could use that in court (though still not something blessed by Scripture because of 1 Cor. 6). But I suppose something is better than nothing in those cases. But there are those in unions with no license, no contract, or nothing to offer a loving protective covering should sin overtake one of the family members.

It seems to me that since sin is so real and pride is so deceptive, that it would be wise, holy, loving, and important to come up with some type of contract or agreement that would spell out the union, roles, responsibilities, and should sin come in and destroy the union how all of the assets would be split up. If this could be done in a cohabitation agreement with Christian arbitrators to review and assess the matter (like a civil judge) then this would fulfill 1 Cor. 6:1-8. And it would also from what I can tell be a legally binding document (just like a business contract), whereby after the arbitrators made a decision based upon the facts that the civil courts could then back up with the power of the sword if necessary.

Maybe this example might help spark some thoughts on the practicality of this. John marries Jane and Brenda. They have a cohabitation legal contract with a set of arbitrators they all agree and consent to be the judges (elders) who would review the issue of the split union should it ever get that bad. Suppose then 15 years into the union John gets crazy and decides he is going to turn against Christ, stop giving money to his family, and he runs off with all of the money in the banck account, and unites with a prostitute and lives in adultery thereafter. Now his family is without the banck account (or gold or silver if that is the choice of coinage), and the family is without food and possibly soon to be without covering. In this type of situation the civil courts may not give anything to anyone because they may not see the union as a marital union or even a contractual union (since it is not documented) but simply as a group of collective people who lived together.

But if there is a legal cohabitation agreement, with a known agreed upon set of arbitrators mediators, then that document could be brought by the ladies (or whole family) to the mediation or arbitration hearing (a trial so to speak where the facts are examined). If the man shows up (or even if he does not) then the case could be tried. If the mediators come to a decision this would be binding. If the man was guilty and refused to still pay or provide for the family then the matter could be given over to the courts to show cause that the man has violated his contractual agreement and then the use of the sword would be used to uphold the original stipulations in the contract.

Would this not be a wise and holy endeavor for the plural union movement? As Dr. Corey has so well stated, it seems like if a man is honest he would want to fulfill whatever is agreed upon and knowing how deceptive sin it would seem to be pride that fuels a rejection of this type of protective covering or effort. If the people entering into the union agree on who the arbitrators would be then that should remove the issue of trust because the people would choose those people themselves. As I understand it this is how the actual early church functioned. As far as I can tell the early saints never took their marriage splits or marriage problems to the secular courts for remedy. It was the elders who handled those matters.

And since most who are in plual unions have no elders, an no marriage licenses, it leaves the whole family unprotected in the physical civil domain.

Could this group of believers possibly out their minds together to come up with a possible solution? Might it be a template of contracts to model for new or existing unions? Could it be a group of men recognized as arbitrators who are mature, wise, and godly enough to be mediatiors of such contract should a violation occur? I'm just brainstorming here on how this might be done and the ideas on the need for it.

Ideas? Thoughts? Suggestions?

Dr. Allen
 
Paul not the apostle said:
But, I digress...
Click to expand...

Digress away, Paul, but do it RIGHT.

Give us websites, along with which are good, which less so, and why. At least some of us are very interested, and know that this is an area where we need improvement in ourm planning.
 
What about the contracts being designed for a non-civil court remedy by the insertion of a Christian board/court remedy? I'm contemplating the issue of 1 Cor. 6 in light of this.

Would it be wise and in the best interest of believers to develop a such a board or set of spiritually mature people who would be the mediators or arbitrators over the union contract when a dispute or possible or alleged conflict arose?

I know in civil law there is such a thing as Arbitration boards that handle many legal disputes outside of the domain of the civil courts. Would this not be a good idea for plural union families to establish to be in compliance to the command of Paul as set forth in 1 Cor. 6:1-8?

If cohabitation contract is set up is and not specified with a Christian arbitration board piece would it not just be going right back into the civil courts where all of those with a marriage license go to begin with, and thus still missing the intent of Paul's purpose in disputes being handled outside of common civil courts where the Spirit of Christ probably does not rule?

Dr. Allen
 
This suggestion has come up repeatedly over the last 12 years I've been involved in this movement. Hasn't flown so far.

It presumes that there is an authority invested in the group / arbitrators / judges / board that will be accepted and considered binding by all. Here's the rub ...

One of the wives decides to leave, or is told to after an affair. If she's already in rebellion against the authority in the home, why would we expect her to continue to respect the authority of the board?

And if arbitration doesn't go her way, what's to keep her from going to civil courts anyway?

Further, very many of us are rugged individualists, who got thrown out of churches on our way to this point. There is a tendency for us to refuse much of any authority beween us and God at this point.

If there were some among us with the legal knowledge and willingness to form such a board, I guess it is possible that it MIGHT be made to work. Would probably be good if it did.

Particularly if it handled everything on the basis of contract law. Contract law is quite clear cut, I am told, whereas family law is a flippin' MESS. If a group of Christians were handling disputes via a system of law superior in outcome to civil law, that would be a good witness.

There's even some precedent. Great Britain already appears to recognize Sharia law. And Rome's ecclesiastical courts are still in effect in some places.

Ideally, this all sounds good. Sadly, I'm a bit pessimistic and, truth be told, kinda expect economic and political events to overtake us before it can be effectively implemented anyway.
 
Thank you, Cecil, for bringing up the issue that glares at me from the mass of good intentions. My thoughts are these: 1. God has already vested the husband with all the necessary authority to deal with these issues. 2. Paul THE Apostle ( :D ) has also dealt with a back up plan. In his letter to the Corinthians, he chides them for going to the civil courts and recognizes the ability of brethren in the church to serve as arbiters. 3. If the husband cannot handle it and the church has been ineffective and God has not been able to reach the erring heart, how can we expect any other authority to understand the problem and enforce the unenforcible? We should just suffer the wrong and move on in our lives. Yes, I do recognize the rugged individualist nature of most poly-minded men. That is a part of the patriarchal mindset that is necessary for "Biblical Marriage" to function. I for one am unwilling and resistant to submit to anyone else's authority to solve my marriage issues.
 
While I very much appreciate all the good intentions here; I can't help but feel uneasy about this. It would seem that this plan would be just another way for the secular legal system to involve themselves in something that they have no business being involved with in the first place. Why invite them in like this ? How would the judgments be enforced if one or more of the parties refused to comply ? IMHO, Christians need to police their own (so to speak); although, even that's not a guarantee that individuals will abide by the decisions handed down.
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
The issue goes back to men (and women as well) being humble, not prideful and wanting to think that they are an island unto themselves, or at least without the need for godly counsel and help. All of us need guidance and help, especially if sin grabs us (Gal. 6:1-2), or at least the way I read scripture.

The issue of someone not submitting to a board is a real issue (people don't come to court sometimes either in family court). But the difference is that if the people have agreed upon a contractual process then that is the legal law of the land so to speak. The court and or executive branch of government then would not be making the ruling, only enforcing the contract that was legally signed.

I'm sure many have been booted out, hurt, and injured by other members in the body of Christ. But even because of their sin we are still to be people who respect the rule of law (spiritual as well as legal) and a people who do our best to submit to wise, mature, and spiritual leaders.

But even so, I'm not sure that is a good reason not to explore a protective measure for those who wish to enter in that type of union. If the early church oversaw the marriages of their day then it seems like there is the same need for that today. And it seems like to me, though I could be wrong, that many ladies (and some men) realize the need to have others who can intervene legally if things get bad and sin has overcome the people in the union (business or personal union).

I guess I am back to my question of, how could this process be set up for those see the need? How could it be done? What would it look like? What would such a contract look like? The whole legal system of Israel was designed as I understand it to provide protections for the people. Then when the church birth the elders of the church carried out this responsibility as well as much as possible.

Thus, I'm trying to figure out if we could put our minds together to develop such a system for those who desire it. I imagine many people would see this system as a safety net. Again i understand the pains that many have had. But I'm not sure how any father would like giving his daughter away into such a union if he does not see some type of safety net there if something goes wrong. Most all fathers think about their daughters and their life after they die. Furthermore, I'm not sure we can justify individuality and ruggedness in light of all of the biblical teachings on the dangers of being indepent, individualistic, and isolated from the covenant community.

And it seems like if the contract was agreed upon by the parties entering into the union, and they were the ones choosing who would be the meditators that such would be very fair, beneficial, and helpful.

Or am I missing something from scripture about the need for families being protected from the ravage nature of sin that sometimes spoils families when it strikes.

Dr. Allen
 
Doctor Allen,
I fear I have mispoken my thoughts. I am not resisting such arbitration as you suggest out of pride or rebelliousness, but out of recognition of a higher authority. I believe scripture adequately endorses the authority of the husband and father as the highest (under God Himself) authority for the family. It is not reasonable to subjugate God's designated authority to the lesser authority of any board, anywhere for any reason. As to the "early church" regulating marriage, I have not seen that portrayed in Holy Writ. I remain unconvinced of the efficacy of such external arbitration. Wise men and women seek godly counsel, but godly counsel cannot be imposed upon the unwise.

John the Baptist
 
Fairlight said:
While I very much appreciate all the good intentions here; I can't help but feel uneasy about this. It would seem that this plan would be just another way for the secular legal system to involve themselves in something that they have no business being involved with in the first place. Why invite them in like this ? How would the judgments be enforced if one or more of the parties refused to comply ? IMHO, Christians need to police their own (so to speak); although, even that's not a guarantee that individuals will abide by the decisions handed down.
Blessings,
Fairlight
Click to expand...

Hummm....Yeah that not what I was trying to communicate here. I must not have articulated it very well.

What I am trying to brainstorm about is a way to indeed keep the secular non-Christian courts out of a civil spiritual matter. For instance, take marriage out of the matter all together and think of it in church membership discipline terms.

When a local church is organized and they form a church constitution this is the legal document that governs the body in the eyes of the state. The state does not care if it is a Christian, non-Christian, satanic, or social club. All the state laws are concerned with is the contractual membership nature of the organization. Most state documents even ask: will this organization have members and if so what are the terms of membership and rights of membership. If a person joins and then there is a conflict among the people that constitution is a means as to how the matter is handled (such as with church discipline steps).

What I am trying to figure out is a way in which those who desire a union without a civil license can still have a legally binding agreement that mature, wise, holy, elders (overseers, mediators, arbitrators, etc) could use in case there arose a problem. Non-Christian Courts would then not be needed. They (natural civil courts of the land)would recognize the contract and the binding nature of the contract and the decision of the spiritual mediators. I know it works in disputes with members in churches so I'm trying to think of how it might work in a similar way in a union between spouses (maybe another term would have to be used).

And yes, I am agreeing with you that Christians do need to POLICE their own, or at least by the word police I mean to handle their own disputes among themselves (but without the power of the sword, which is reserved for criminal matters or higher matters), which I think is Paul's point in 1 Cor 6:18. He chided the people of Corinth for not being mature enough to handle these lower level civil matters without going before the natural civil courts.

As far as how would it be enforced if one person did not comply, well that then becomes a criminal matter (something to be enforced by the state sphere by the sword). If two parties entered into a contractual agreement that specified who the arbitrators would be (such as group of spiritual saints) then if those people were called in because of some major dysfunction (strife, split, abandonment, etc) then by the legal contract they could (not the natural civil courts) apply the law of the contract and make a binding decision upon the parties in the contract. Once that decision has been reached by the contractually specified mediators if the person in error did not comply with the matter as previously defined by the contract terms then the matters leave the civil sphere and becomes a criminal breach of contract violation.

If I am thinking correctly it would be like a business and customer going to an arbitration meeting based upon the contract and then a decision being made yet one of the people not willing to comply. Maybe the terms of the contract specify that if customer xyz fails to pay a fee that he must turn a piece of equipment back into the company but the person refuses to pay and then after arbitration is found in error and yet still refuses to comply with the mediation's decision. At that point the matter is turned over to the criminal authorities for breach of contract where one party is refusing to submit to the agreed upon decision of the arbitration.

In churches this is used sometimes when there is a dispute. The executive branch of government is called in to handle these issues sometimes. A member will be banned from a church service after being disciplined, yet the member then will not leave and will not comply with the spiritual ban (often claiming he has a right to be there). At that point the police and courts will honor the church constitution. If the constitution says that when a church disciplines someone that they are banned from the premises then they (the police and courts) will enforce that contract provision should a person buck it and not want to comply because at the point they fail to comply with the civil contract or constitution they then cross over from a simple contract violation to now a criminal violation.

I think is what Paul means when he says we are to judge the "trivial/smaller cases," (1 Cor. 6. vs. 2). Those smaller courts are what we call civil courts today. Criminal court trumps civil courts and that domain is for cases like assaults, murder, and other crimes of aggression or matters of ultimate defiance, which would consume the matters of someone who agreed to do something, was found not doing it by a competent counsel (basically a set of spiritual jurors) and then still rejecting that decision.

So what I am trying to figure out is how would such a contract look if one were devised for that purpose? What language would be used if a couple wanted to humble themselves to a godly set of elders (arbitration council) under the biblical principle of Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Thessalonians 5:12? I know some who voluntarily would like to have this type of protection over them and their union as they see the need for accountability and guidance by those who are "over them in the Lord" (1 Thess. 5:12).

For those men and women who desire to be under authority as a protective covering should sin lead one or more members in the union astray I think we should try and brainstorm if there is way that this might be accomplished. I'm sure there are some fathers and mothers who would like to know that if they are going to give their daughters away that there is a spiritual and legal aspect working in harmony in order to protect the daughter should something terribly bad go on that damages or destroys the union (such as the man doing something that destroys the family economically by his failute to live up to the promise or agreement made at the time of marriage).

But how to go about setting it up to do this is an area I'm not sure about.

Suggestions on what that might look like and how it could be done?

Dr. Allen
 
I come from a place where the situation differs a bit, but I am united with you on the fact that unbelievers should not sit over disputes between Children of GOD. In Nigeria, a person living in plural marriage can find protection under the Traditional Marriage Law in the Customary courts, but should we bring our cases to unbelievers. Also, the family of the parties involved more times than not are readily available to intervene and adjudicate in cases of default in roles and responsibilities by any party.
Speaking with the knowledge of the Scriptures, what happens in Christian Marriages generally should be settled within the confines of the church. Elders are to arbitrate over issues and when a party defies the Elders, such person should be treated as a Gentile (unbeliever). Treating the person as an unbeliever may mean handing him over to the devil (figuratively as I mean the government). This may become unnecessary considering the words of Paul in 1 Cor 6:7;"To have such lawsuits at all is a real defeat for you as Christians. Why not just accept mistreatment and leave it at that? It would be far more honoring to the Lord to let yourselves be cheated." (The Living Bible)
However, my take on this is this on those cheated; what will be the role of the church in finding comfort and solace for the abused/abandoned parties? Can the church rise up to the occasion of alleviating the sufferings of this people. We are our brother's keepers. Though it may be easier here because of the communal style of living possible here, but I believe that it should be easiest where the Spirit of GOD is. This is to align with the fears of Fairweather, so that the devil (figuratively again) will not use that as a footstool to finally regulate what foes on in the church.
The example of the Early Church in Acts 2:44-45 (All the believers continued together in close fellowship and shared their belongings with one another. They would sell their property and possessions, and distribute the money among all, according to what each one needed. Today's English Version) should be our model to organize a comprehensive welfare/insurance for ourselves.
 
Dr. Allen,

I have read these threads and I think it is probably a wise idea. It seems to me that there needs to be some room for an outside help should these things go wrong inside the union and one or the other of the spouses choose to leave. It is important that a man would provide for his family in this way.The Bible tells us that a man who doesn't provide for his family is worse than an infidel. Therefore the man should do everything in his power that is humanly possible to protect that family unit and it seems to me that an arbitration board would be one way to ensure that what is best for the family occurs. It is important for women to also let their men decide and then back them up. I am not saying you cannot as a woman have your own thoughts. However I am saying that you should be thankful for the covering and blessing that your husband provides for you and your family unit.

As a woman myself who is unmarried and who is also researching this lifestyle, I have found that there is something lacking to those entering a marriage without a state marriage liscence to protect the parties involved should it ever come to a legal battle (especially for those who have been shunned from churches due to their views on marriage). If this arbitration board is in place, then it would serve as a way to keep the parties out of the court room yet still under a binding authority that would be recognized legally should the parties involved refuse the decision of the arbitration board. It is vitally important that we realize the distinctions of the three spheres of home, church, and community and the functions of each. The highest authority in the home is the husband and wives should submit themselves to the authority of the husband. Of course the head of the man is Christ and if the man be in Christ then he will make Godly decisions. The highest authority in the church is the elders. They are of course also submitted to Christ and will be making Godly decisions when functioning under the authority of Christ. The community sphere has laws and authorities that are designed to protect us when we are doing what is right. However when we are doing what is wrong there needs to be some way to correct the sin issues that arise in the hearts and lives of humans. Therefore we are subject to legal authorities as officers of the law. Granted the laws that legislators pass aren't always Godly, but we are expected to be respectful of the law and its officers. I myself would not want to be in a union with a man who would refuse to be submissive to authority. If he refused to submit to an earthly authority that he can see how could he be submissive to a heavenly authority that he cannot see? I know that it would give me peace knowing that not only would I be protected by my heavenly Father but also by the law which is set up to protect me on earth during my journey here. God offers a protection to his children in each of the three spheres. Rejecting that protection whether it be in the home where a woman rejects the authority and protection of her husband, the church where the elders are not ruling and their authority is usurped, or in the community where we are completely and totally disrespectful of our government and civil leaders would be very unwise.

As women we need to be loving the man in our life and backing him up. We need to be making our decisions every day in a way that says to him that we respect him and trust his judgment. It is vitally important that we do so. He is our covering and a blessing sent to us from the Father above. It is he who was given the authority not us as women. We are to be submissive because the man understands that we love him when we are respectful of him. So let each of us be thankful for the man in our lives who is attempting to live his life in a way that is honoring to God and build him up in all he does.

So what would look like if we could come up with this type of legally binding contract to those entering into unions with one another? IS it something that could be done? This is something that I myself hope to see in the near future for those who are in these types of unions now and those who will be in the future.
 
We tried to do something like this a long time ago. Here's what we discovered.
1) It would have to go into federal court under a legal arbitration.
2) If you bother the federal courts under this then you could also face certain state bigamy, polygamy, and other state charges that apply with plural marriage. This means all parties involved. So we 86'd that idea.

Then we went and started our own private plural marriage system kind of our own version of monetary system for women who were mistreated or put aside by her husband. Here's what we discovered.
1) We had no way to back up any thing legally.
2) Most even when a judgement was given they wouldn't adhear to it.
3) Some took it as a joke all together. Even though people were voted in they were told by most families to where there were other wives that they were the athuroty in their own homes and we had no right to know or intervein as to what was going on.
4) We finally decided that to try to intervien any more then we did would e like trying to start our own type of religious government witch would be just a little too much like an occult and would start the government agencies to notice us. Witch is what we didn't want.

I wish I knew of a succesful way to make it work but from what I have seen untill plural marriage was legalised one or both parties could be greatly abused with no recourse.

Dr. Keith Allen said:
I've been pondering something as of late.

In civil law we have something that most all contracts can be written to call for in case of some type of dispute. It is called an arbitration review board. Many times when contracts in business are signed they agree in the contract to have an arbitration board that will settle the disputes which will be binding on all parties, even binding in actual civil courts, should a conflict or breach occur.

Therefore, I have been thinking holistically here about how this might apply here. I am pondering if it is possible for us to develop a system whereby when a man takes a wife that a legal contract could developed with an arbitration clause and board that is mutually chosen by the couple that would be the arbitrators if something happened that led to a severe dispute and possibly a split among the parties.

I believe it is essential that we do everything we can as Christians to settle civil disputes outside of common civil courts of the land. The Bible makes this very clear in 1 Cor. 6:1-8.

The need for this is great when most courts will not recognize the type of unions as suggested and taught herein. With the reality of sin it is very possible that a person could be abused or put out unjustly without any recourse. In such cases it seems like an arbitration board or something could be of great value to couples entering into unions. If they voluntarily decided to have some type of civil agreement composed, and they could select some mature, godly, and wise people who would serve as arbitrators should something terrible go wrong then I think that would provide a deeper level of security and protection for each member in the relationship. Also, if this could be drawn up legally this type of union then would have the backing of the civil courts (and sword of the state if necessary) should the parties try and reject the authority of the arbitrators who review and make ruling on the matter.

As of right now when people enter such unions without this there is very little that protects the parties involved if something terrible happens due to the ravage nature of sin. For example, suppose John marries Brenda, Katie, and Helen. Then they all have one checking account together and John gets crazy and decides to leave his spouses to run off with a woman who is married to another man (adultery). He pulls out all of the money and leaves Helen, Katie, and Brenda, and the children, in a bad situation. As it stands, if there is no civil union recognized by the govt. the ladies are in most cases without recourse.

If there was a way we could all put our heads together to develop some type of system like this then I think this would provide a level of protection that is not currently available outside of the standard marriage license that is supported and recognized in civil/family courts today.

This would require a little time with a contract lawyer (I know some of you do not like the term or profession fo lawyer but please don't let thisissue derail the dicussion of the larger issue here) for the development of this and possibly some discussion among all herein on wise ways to build a template model that others could examine and consider for their own unions and famlies.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?

Dr. Allen
Click to expand...
 
The only problem here is what you are saying about letting the law in on your marriage. Do you realize when you enter into living plural marriage you are breaking the law? Even believing in or supporting plural marriage in the US can get you into some form of hot water! The more you go in front the courts with this the more you will see some one if not all parties going to jail getting children taken ect. I break the law every day one way or another every one does with out knowing they are doing it. Here in Albuquerque it is a class B misdemeanor to fart in public and you can do 30 days in jail. Who really knows that? All though you don't see it enforced often find a cop in a bad mood and it can be. Same thing with polygamy, though you don't see it enforced very often it does happen when you make it too public and a judge in the right mood wants to make an example of you or a DA. I am kicked out of a state for officiating a plural union. If I go back I could do time just for reading vows for some one. That's why I am against Government intervention as far as plural marriage. Even decriminalized it is still considered a criminal act no matter what kind of contract you have sign and try to uphold. Even being the victim can turn you into a criminal once you go to court. If we could legalize plural marriage then most of the problems could be handled but good luck making that happen. To most we are immoral witch stops most states from recognizing our life style and what we have had to endure to get there.


God'sGirl88 said:
Dr. Allen,

I have read these threads and I think it is probably a wise idea. It seems to me that there needs to be some room for an outside help should these things go wrong inside the union and one or the other of the spouses choose to leave. It is important that a man would provide for his family in this way.The Bible tells us that a man who doesn't provide for his family is worse than an infidel. Therefore the man should do everything in his power that is humanly possible to protect that family unit and it seems to me that an arbitration board would be one way to ensure that what is best for the family occurs. It is important for women to also let their men decide and then back them up. I am not saying you cannot as a woman have your own thoughts. However I am saying that you should be thankful for the covering and blessing that your husband provides for you and your family unit.

As a woman myself who is unmarried and who is also researching this lifestyle, I have found that there is something lacking to those entering a marriage without a state marriage liscence to protect the parties involved should it ever come to a legal battle (especially for those who have been shunned from churches due to their views on marriage). If this arbitration board is in place, then it would serve as a way to keep the parties out of the court room yet still under a binding authority that would be recognized legally should the parties involved refuse the decision of the arbitration board. It is vitally important that we realize the distinctions of the three spheres of home, church, and community and the functions of each. The highest authority in the home is the husband and wives should submit themselves to the authority of the husband. Of course the head of the man is Christ and if the man be in Christ then he will make Godly decisions. The highest authority in the church is the elders. They are of course also submitted to Christ and will be making Godly decisions when functioning under the authority of Christ. The community sphere has laws and authorities that are designed to protect us when we are doing what is right. However when we are doing what is wrong there needs to be some way to correct the sin issues that arise in the hearts and lives of humans. Therefore we are subject to legal authorities as officers of the law. Granted the laws that legislators pass aren't always Godly, but we are expected to be respectful of the law and its officers. I myself would not want to be in a union with a man who would refuse to be submissive to authority. If he refused to submit to an earthly authority that he can see how could he be submissive to a heavenly authority that he cannot see? I know that it would give me peace knowing that not only would I be protected by my heavenly Father but also by the law which is set up to protect me on earth during my journey here. God offers a protection to his children in each of the three spheres. Rejecting that protection whether it be in the home where a woman rejects the authority and protection of her husband, the church where the elders are not ruling and their authority is usurped, or in the community where we are completely and totally disrespectful of our government and civil leaders would be very unwise.

As women we need to be loving the man in our life and backing him up. We need to be making our decisions every day in a way that says to him that we respect him and trust his judgment. It is vitally important that we do so. He is our covering and a blessing sent to us from the Father above. It is he who was given the authority not us as women. We are to be submissive because the man understands that we love him when we are respectful of him. So let each of us be thankful for the man in our lives who is attempting to live his life in a way that is honoring to God and build him up in all he does.

So what would look like if we could come up with this type of legally binding contract to those entering into unions with one another? IS it something that could be done? This is something that I myself hope to see in the near future for those who are in these types of unions now and those who will be in the future.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting points.

It sounds like what was being planned was some type of legal/marriage contract?

What I am talking about is a legal cohabitation agreement with just one additional element, an arbitration element in it.

I think, though I might be wrong, that the two are differt and thus one could be done in today's legal cimiate.

As far the laws against polygyny, since the ruling of Lawrence versus Texas all of the private sexual conduct laws between consenting adults have been stricken down. That is the domain that I am talking about working for the contract, not in the domain of where the civil licensure governs. From what I can tell the two are now in different spheres.

The laws against bigamy, polygyny, or even homosexuals in many states still stand in the sense of not allowing a marriage license to be issued. But in the other sphere where they cohabitate together the laws do not forbid their practices. Thus there are now two spheres or two realms of the law to work within.

I'm talking about the cohabitation side not the civil marriage licensure side. The Spiritual Arbitration board could recognize it as a spiritual marriage even though the state may not. I am trying to figure out it is possible to develop a legal cohabitation agreement that is honored by a Spiritual Arbitration board (set of spiritual elders). Cohabitation agreements already exist for those who do not go through the state marriage system.

Is it possible to develop from that idea of contract and incorporate into a Spiritual body of arbitrators who could oversee and be supported by the court and executive branch of government should they have to make a decision on the matter? It is done in every other area of contract law when dealing with business, so I am trying to see if we could extend it to cohabitation agreements. So long as there is no state marriage license involved I can not see why there would be legal conflict. The states here in the USA do not discriminate against people who choose to live together. So why could that type of contract not be modified with just an additional arbitration element added to it?

Do we have any contacts herein of a contract lawyer? Like I said from the beginning, I am a generalist in the field of law, not a specialist so this is outside of my specialty.

I'm curious if this could be done based upon existing cohabitation agreements with just an additional element of an arbitration agreement inside of the cohabitation contract? Any ideas from anyone if this is possible? Has that side ever bee tried or atempted?

Dr. Allen
 
I understand that. But what's to stop them from taking up a case against one or all parties if it is seen as polygamy? The state if they find out can take all sides for polygamy. I am asking how do you stop the state from picking up polygamy or bigamy charges if it has to go in front a legal court?

Dr. Keith Allen said:
Interesting points.

It sounds like what was being planned was some type of legal/marriage contract?

What I am talking about is a legal cohabitation agreement with just one additional element, an arbitration element in it.

I think, though I might be wrong, that the two are differt and thus one could be done in today's legal cimiate.

As far the laws against polygyny, since the ruling of Lawrence versus Texas all of the private sexual conduct laws between consenting adults have been stricken down. That is the domain that I am talking about working for the contract, not in the domain of where the civil licensure governs. From what I can tell the two are now in different spheres.

The laws against bigamy, polygyny, or even homosexuals in many states still stand in the sense of not allowing a marriage license to be issued. But in the other sphere where they cohabitate together the laws do not forbid their practices. Thus there are now two spheres or two realms of the law to work within.

I'm talking about the cohabitation side not the civil marriage licensure side. The Spiritual Arbitration board could recognize it as a spiritual marriage even though the state may not. I am trying to figure out it is possible to develop a legal cohabitation agreement that is honored by a Spiritual Arbitration board (set of spiritual elders). Cohabitation agreements already exist for those who do not go through the state marriage system.

Is it possible to develop from that idea of contract and incorporate into a Spiritual body of arbitrators who could oversee and be supported by the court and executive branch of government should they have to make a decision on the matter? It is done in every other area of contract law when dealing with business, so I am trying to see if we could extend it to cohabitation agreements. So long as there is no state marriage license involved I can not see why there would be legal conflict. The states here in the USA do not discriminate against people who choose to live together. So why could that type of contract not be modified with just an additional arbitration element added to it?

Do we have any contacts herein of a contract lawyer? Like I said from the beginning, I am a generalist in the field of law, not a specialist so this is outside of my specialty.

I'm curious if this could be done based upon existing cohabitation agreements with just an additional element of an arbitration agreement inside of the cohabitation contract? Any ideas from anyone if this is possible? Has that side ever bee tried or atempted?

Dr. Allen
Click to expand...
 
Revgill is hitting the problem on its head. All it takes is for one judge looking for fame in any state that recognizes common law marriage to turn one of these 'cohabitation contracts' into criminal bigamy. Creating a formal, legal recognized arbitration board puts a target on your backs by creating a larger organization where they can get many convictions out of one investigation.

That makes this action very dangerous in any of the many states that have some form of common law marriage, and thats just the obvious danger. To really assess the risk of this you would need specific, detailed research into both the history of case law in the state and the presiding judges in the state.

Moreover you can't work on a federal level because there (like here) its the federal law that is the problem, so any hope of making a universal arbitration board is out of the question for now. If you got many people together in a state with favorable laws you could take a shot at it, but its no good trying to make a board for you're whole country at this point.



I wouldn't mind if more people came here to SK, I've said before and I'll say again that its the best place in North America for Polygyny right now. That could change, but thats true of any worldly thing.
 
Dr Keith, you can make a contract that SAYS it has to be arbitrated by a spiritual arbitration board all you want. But in practical terms of enforcing it? All it takes is for one party to try to sound all spiritual and claim the other is in rebellion, and the other party to claim that there's physical abuse going on behind closed doors, and be usatisfied with the response of "the Brethren", who are trying to be cautious in a "he said / she said" situation, and therefore reffuse to accept the arbitration, and where are you at?

Right back in the courts, to try to enforce that contract.

Churches trying to wield both civil and religious power have a long, l-o-n-g track record of working out poorly. That's why the founding father's of our fair country separated them.

So, to put a point on it, have fun trying, but I won't take part in it.

RevGill: Since the 90s, when one of the Supreme Court judges admitted they'd have to consider the constitutionality of the laws against polygamy, unless somehoe polygamists inherently had less civil rights than gays, the states have pussyfooted around it. They'll prosecute a man foer bigamy who has gotten 2 marriage licenses, or has wed 2 or more women in a fraudulent manner, but the issue will be the fraud, or the multiple marriage licenses. In other cases, they'll pursue the underage angle if one of the wives was married too young.

But the basic issue of PM? They don't wanna touch that with a ten foot pole, cause sure as God made little green apples, if it goes to the supreme court, it could well become suddenly legal, and they'd rather preserve whatever intimidation factor they got. On the other hand, I know of plural families who have openly been allowed to adopt, act as foster parents, prevailed in open court in custody battles, etc. So that whole side of the issue, worries about prosecution, just doesn't really bother me much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top