State Marriage License

[Shibboleth]

OK... This is a discussion I've wanted to raise for a while on this site, but never got around to asking. I alluded to it recently in the "The Manual" thread, and decided this was a good time to bring it up. I put it in the "Singles Issues" forum because, well, I'm single, and this is a question I'd like to hammer out before any (currently hypothetical) first marriage.

Obviously, for those pursuing a PM situation, any marriage beyond the first cannot legally have a marriage license. But what about for that first marriage? What are the pros and cons of not getting a license at all? I believe that getting one is wrong on some level, or at least very unwise, but I'm still trying to sort out the (non-poly) arguments for exactly why I feel that way. I'd like to do it in a way that exposes the issues I'm wrestling with, but I'd also like to get it to the point where I can use it persuade other people of why I might make this decision.

For now, I've decided to take a dialectical dialogue approach. "PRO" is arguing for avoiding a marriage license, while "CON" is arguing against avoiding a license (i.e. for getting one). This is a sort of high-level sketch of where I'm at right now with my arguments. Any help adding to or fleshing out these arguments (or better: anticipating other counter-arguments) is greatly appreciated. Thanks!


PRO: I see no good reason to get a state marriage license when I get married.

CON: If you live together without a marriage license, you are just cohabiting, which is sinful.

PRO: Marriage licenses are a very recent invention, originating from miscegenation laws, so they cannot be necessary for a Biblical marriage.

CON: But the Bible clearly portrays a marriage as a covenant, which cohabiting is not.

PRO: But a marriage covenant can be made between two individuals, and their families, before God and witnesses; nothing remotely suggests that the state must be involved.

CON: Granted, but state involvement is a good thing, because it will enforce the marriage.

PRO: The government has no interest in enforcing marriages; especially since no-fault divorce. With a divorce rate near 50%, your marriage is about as safe as it would be if it were enforced with a coin-toss.

CON: But it still provides a legal recourse if something should go wrong.

PRO: A marriage license places your marriage under the jurisdiction of family law, which is notorious for tearing up families, and is subject to change on a judge's whim. Rather than protecting your marriage, you are making it unnecessarily vulnerable.

CON: But a marriage should be under some higher jurisdiction.

PRO: The Apostle Paul says to not take matters between believers before a secular court, but to take them before a Church body.

CON: What if the Church cannot be trusted in this matter?

PRO: If the people of God cannot be trusted, the state must be trusted less. To give it jurisdiction over marriage is to make it like a god.

CON: But the state is God's minister. We are to render Caesar his due, and the government requires a marriage license.

PRO: The government does not require it. It literally does not care if two people live together.

CON: But the government will give extra benefits if you claim you are married.

PRO: You could claim you are married even if you do not have a license.

CON: The government would consider that fraud.

PRO: What are these extra benefits?

CON: Taxes, insurance, wills, medical visitation rights... (others?)

PRO: Are there alternative means to get them?

CON: Doesn't refusing to sign a license constitute neglect of your duties to provide for your wife?

PRO: Doesn't getting a licence for the sake of receiving benefits constitute taking a bribe from the government?

 

[Mojo]

I think most of this could be solved under contract laws, but I am not sure. @andrew was in that field. Maybe he can answer that more clearly.

I have a license, and it doesn't bother me. If others choose to not get one, it wouldn't bother me.

But just for clarification, isn't marriage a form cohabitation? Why the distinction?

 

[Shibboleth]

I think most of this could be solved under contract laws, but I am not sure. @andrew was in that field. Maybe he can answer that more clearly.

I have a license, and it doesn't bother me. If others choose to not get one, it wouldn't bother me.

But just for clarification, isn't marriage a form cohabitation? Why the distinction?

I'm anticipating what other's reactions would be. Typically (at least as far as I'm aware), the word "cohabitation" is reserved to speak of living together without being married or having any type of permanent commitment (i.e. "shacking up").

And just to clarify (I meant to say this originally), I don't think it's a sin to get one, but I also don't think it's a sin to not get one (I'm open to being convinced I'm wrong either way, but it would have to be a strong argument). Instead, I think it's more of an issue of wisdom, and I'm trying to decide which way is more wise. I'm sort of on the fence, but leaning one way.

Also, before too much lawyerliness enters the debate, I've already checked that Missouri is not a Common Law state.

 

[andrew]

What do you think God is telling you to do? I don't think you're going to reason your way to a 'right' answer in this case; there are plenty of pros and cons either way you look at it. What's does your spirit tell you God wants for you?

(NB - I'm not saying you can't go through a formal exercise of reasoning. I'm just saying that there's no obvious right or wrong answer for everybody, no formula, so you can run that exercise and what you'll end up doing is just coming up with a moral justification for what your monkey brain wanted to do the whole time anyway. Better to just pray about it and follow the Leader.)

 

[The Revolting Man]

Windblown and I have a marriage license and it is a very convenient thing. I think it's a bad idea for most couples though.

 

[cnystrom]

I know Christians that know nothing of the polygamous community who avoid getting marriage licenses as they are not interested in the state being involved. I am thinking there is a rise in this sort of reasoning with the state sanctioning gay marriage.

When I was in the Navy they paid you more if you were married. I knew a guy that secretly got legally married just to get the extra pay. They were planning a more public marriage later.

I have one. I would get one again only if there was a specific need for one, like for immigration reasons, or for significant pay and benefits.

 

[MrB]

More than twenty years ago I got a licence to marry. At the time I thought it's was the only way.
Since then my view of things has changed. I don't have a problem with or without a licence.
But If I had my time again I wouldn't get one.

Some time ago we where doing legal stuff and restructuring some business we owned
It was suggested we set up a trust to protect our personal assets in the event of business failure.
After considering it for a while I decided against it.
Can a man be righteous with impunity?
You chose the framework that best reflects the man you want to be.
The things you hold close to you reveal who you are.
If it's all about money you put that first....or time , control , people , God..and so forth.
With some things If you get it wrong you can change your mind,
What's important to you?
With or without Which best reflects the man you want to be?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

And just to clarify (I meant to say this originally), I don't think it's a sin to get one, but I also don't think it's a sin to not get one (I'm open to being convinced I'm wrong either way, but it would have to be a strong argument). Instead, I think it's more of an issue of wisdom, and I'm trying to decide which way is more wise. I'm sort of on the fence, but leaning one way.

I had a foreman one time that drilled into me that the there is a good, better and best way to complete a project. The best way to build/complete one project may not be the best way to complete the next or succeeding projects depending on the variables.

Often we choose to build our house based on the best information at the time that later turns out to be marginally good at best.

The question becomes can you change from where you are to something better if there is such a thing.

I, personally, have come to believe that the best way has already been established in Scripture as the trustee of all God has entrusted to us. The closer we can come to the biblical model of a trust that is granted by another, but managed and controlled by the trustee(s) for another's benefit, the better off we'll be both internally and externally.

I'm not entirely sure yet how this looks exactly, but am convinced it is a combination of a contractually created partnership that is provided for and protected through an irrevocable trust

 

[andrew]

I'm not entirely sure yet how this looks exactly, but am convinced it is a combination of a contractually created partnership that is provided for and protected through an irrevocable trust

Is this something we could make time to work on together and present at the TX retreat?...

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Sure Andrew. I've got an idea of the rough draft or big picture but could definitely use some brainstorming with a lawyerly type

 

[Mojo]

I had a foreman one time that drilled into me that the there is a good, better and best way to complete a project. The best way to build/complete one project may not be the best way to complete the next or succeeding projects depending on the variables.

Often we choose to build our house based on the best information at the time that later turns out to be marginally good at best.

The question becomes can you change from where you are to something better if there is such a thing.

I, personally, have come to believe that the best way has already been established in Scripture as the trustee of all God has entrusted to us. The closer we can come to the biblical model of a trust that is granted by another, but managed and controlled by the trustee(s) for another's benefit, the better off we'll be both internally and externally.

I'm not entirely sure yet how this looks exactly, but am convinced it is a combination of a contractually created partnership that is provided for and protected through an irrevocable trust

This was the solution to gay "marriage" that I've advocated for years now....but it was all about social politics. Gays never wanted marriage, or solutions to hospital visits. They just wanted social acceptance and advocacy.

 

[Shibboleth]

I don't think you're going to reason your way to a 'right' answer in this case; there are plenty of pros and cons either way you look at it.

It's not so much that I'm looking for a right or wrong, so much as trying to understand the nuts-and-bolts of the choice as best as I can. I guess part of the issue is that no one really explains what a marriage license legally involves, or what it does for you -- it's just assumed that you need one. Honestly, even after having done a bit of research, it's not really clear to me, other than the ability to joint file taxes. I think part of what I was looking for was an explanation of what is or isn't involved, and in the interest of exploring that territory further, I've gone ahead and purchased a book Living Together : A Legal Guide for Unmarried Couples (not sure when I'll get around to reading it, as I'm currently working through Shipley's book). It feels really weird to even read that title because it's been so strongly ingrained in me that avoiding marriage implies a temporary, uncommitted relationship, which is the exact opposite of what I'm interested in.

Windblown and I have a marriage license and it is a very convenient thing. I think it's a bad idea for most couples though.

I have one. I would get one again only if there was a specific need for one...

More than twenty years ago I got a licence to marry... But If I had my time again I wouldn't get one.

I'm very curious about these responses. Anyone care to elaborate?

I know Christians that know nothing of the polygamous community who avoid getting marriage licenses as they are not interested in the state being involved. I am thinking there is a rise in this sort of reasoning with the state sanctioning gay marriage.

Full disclosure: that's definitely what got me starting to think heavily about it, before I even realized polygamy was a Biblical option, and even before I really knew anything about no-fault divorce.

With some things If you get it wrong you can change your mind,

The question becomes can you change from where you are to something better if there is such a thing.

This is a good point too. It's easier to change your mind in favor of getting a marriage license later if you realize you need one for some reason, than to get rid of one after the fact.

I, personally, have come to believe that the best way has already been established in Scripture as the trustee of all God has entrusted to us. The closer we can come to the biblical model of a trust that is granted by another, but managed and controlled by the trustee(s) for another's benefit, the better off we'll be both internally and externally.

It took me a few times reading this to realize you meant "a trust" in the legal sense (which I'll deal with shortly), and not just the generic quality of "trusting". But I think this is what I've come to realize (which Andrew rightly will call my "moral justification"): how can the man fulfill his role as a faithful, trustworthy provider, if the law recognizes both spouses as being roughly equal co-owners of their property the moment that paper is signed? The verse (and hymn) that comes to mind is from Lamentations 3. "His compassions fail not, they are new every morning. Great is Thy faithfulness."

I'm not entirely sure yet how this looks exactly, but am convinced it is a combination of a contractually created partnership that is provided for and protected through an irrevocable trust

I don't know a whole lot about law and finance, but I've had the thought that some vehicle like this, as a form of bride-price, made sense. (!!! Did I just seriously use the term "bride price" ??? What kind of Neanderthal am I? )

 

[Mojo]

Simply put, as I understand it, in most states, the marriage license us a pseudo trust. Upon death, ALL assets are immediately assumed to belong to the surviving spouse. Court filings aren't necessary. I think that is what most who have a license are getting at.

Yes, the joint filing if taxes is another, as well as purchasing health insurance.

 

[steve]

This is a good point too. It's easier to change your mind in favor of getting a marriage license later if you realize you need one for some reason, than to get rid of one after the fact.

Boom

I got one 22 years ago because "that's what everyone does".

I also got a vasectomy 40 years ago.
It cost me about $150.
Reversing it was $8,000.
Anybody getting the picture?

 

[frederick]

A question that comes to mind here is; does a license create a difficulty for another (2nd, 3rd, etc.) wife to be recognised as an equal marriage partner or to have a sense of equality with the wife that has got one? For a wife, there seems to be an emotional element attached to having the piece of paper verses not having it, and especially when one has it and another does not. It could be considered a CON from the perspective of that sense of equality and security for the wives.

 

[andrew]

That's a good point, but like a lot of other things, it's only as big a problem as what you make of it. Cheryl has a license; Ginny and Ann don't. They can't legally get one, so should I 'legally divorce' Cheryl just to make it 'fair'? It was just never an issue, because they chose not to make it one.

 

[Mojo]

Boom

I got one 22 years ago because "that's what everyone does".

I also got a vasectomy 40 years ago.
It cost me about $150.
Reversing it was $8,000.
Anybody getting the picture?

Yikes! What was more painful? The reversal, or the bill?

 

[steve]

Yikes! What was more painful? The reversal, or the bill?

The funny thing was that she had found this group that did such an awesome job and was recommending it to me.
So I placated her with "Sure hon, if we ever have an extra 7 grand (just the initial surgery), I will be glad to have it done". Like that was going to happen.

A couple of years later finds her doing MWR in Baghdad @ 80 grand a year tax free.
"Remember our conversation about the reversal?"
"Oh crud, I did promise....."

It wasn't too bad until I watched the DVD that they had taken. Suddenly got extremely protective of them.

 

[NetWatchR]

CON: If you live together without a marriage license, you are just cohabiting, which is sinful.

You already know this, but for everyone else out there: THIS right here is were a lot of unenlightened Christians get things wrong from the start and should be restated again. Legal (secular) and Lawful (biblical) are two completely different things. Living together with the intent of staying together as man and wife without a state-issued license is not sinful. It is legally cohabitation, but it is also lawfully marriage.

 

[steve]

Living together with the intent of staying together as man and wife without a state-issued license is not sinful. It is legally cohabitation, but it is also lawfully marriage.

Is it marriage if it doesn't include witnesses and a covenant between the two?
Is a vague intention to stay together recognized as marriage by YHWH?