The Separation of State and Marriage

[Doc]

What is the government's role regarding marriage? This is truly at the crux of many of our discussions here on this board. Many who post and read here have already come to some sort of conclusion regarding the Biblical legitimacy of plural marriage. What often creates conflict among many is the direct impact that has on what has been termed 'traditional marriage', especially as it relates to government.

I have come to my own personal conclusions regarding this matter, and I submit the following for discussion, revision, and conversation. I seek your input on developing a 'position paper' of sorts, a guideline that can be used cross-culturally.


********************
THE SEPARATION OF STATE & MARRIAGE

IMHO(Doc): I do not believe that the State has any authority to give legitimacy to what I consider a spiritual experience. The State can no more declare someone 'married' than they can declare an individual a 'christian' or any group of believers a 'church'. I recognize that the State does serve a legitimate role as an arbiter of contracts between individuals. As such, any two or more individuals already enjoy the privilege of agreeing to mutual terms by contract. If either party violates that agreement, the other party has the right to seek judgement from the State regarding the violation. You don't need a 'license' from the State to enter into a private agreement....unless you are getting married....

I recognize that the State has the authority to issue a driver's license. You are driving on public roads. You and every other driver are submitting to the authority of the State in deciding what is to be considered best driving practices. If you do not hold up your end of the agreement with the State, they can come and take away your privilege to drive.

I recognize that the State has the authority to issue a fishing license. If you are fishing in public waterways, you are taking responsibility along with every other licensed fisherman to not only obey the limits (certain fish, number of fish, etc), but also to be a conservator of those waterways. Once again, if you abuse your privilege, they can take your license away, and you cannot legally fish.

I recognize that the State has the authority to issue a business license. The State has the authority as it relates to commerce and taxes about who should and shouldn't be doing business. It can charge a fee to a business for the privilege of buying, selling and providing goods and services within its environs. I recognize that it has the authority to regulate commerce, and set the rules for engaging in such. Again, violation of those rules can result in the loss of that privilege.

But to what end does the State have in issuing a marriage license? Are we asking the State to sanction a spiritual experience? Are we submitting to the authority of the State and to their 'best marriage practices'? What rules does the State institute for marriage, and if I violate them, can they take my 'license' away? And if the State does take my license, am I still married?

The State often charges a fee for marriage licenses. How is this money used? Is it used to regulate marriages (no)? Is it used to set up marriage enrichment classes or divorce prevention sessions (no)? Is it used to provide parenting and family support (no)? As far as I can tell, the money taken in by the State for marriage licenses is used for no legitimate purpose than to generate a $2 notarized certificate, because other than the initial granting of the marriage license, it appears that the State steps completely out of the picture at that point, and says, "Live and let live".

Some would argue that the purpose for the State sanctioning of marriage is to protect the family unit. Really? If the State said that the limit on the number of children you could have was two, would you obey? If the State determined that an unborn child with a significant defect would be better off euthanized, would you obey? The State already has the right to remove children from a home if it determines it to be an unsuitable environment, but that has nothing to do with marriage. If the State required a man to have vasectomy, because he was determined 'unfit' to reproduce, would you submit?

If today's political culture wants to hold to the doctrine of separation of church and State, then I say, let it be. I say that marriage is not a State issue, but a church issue, and that the State has no authority in the determining who is or isn't married.

I believe in the Separation of State and Marriage
*******************

I know I have put a lot of information out here for the grist mill, but I would like your input and thoughts on the matter.

Blessings,

 

[CecilW]

Good post, Doc. It seems to me that the situation is even simpler, IN MOST CASES.

Jesus said, "Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar''s, and to God what is God's."

He also said, "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

This would seem to lay clear claim that Marriage falls under God's purview, not Ceasar's. Thus Ceasar should get out.

Having said that, there are times when Ceasar's help is required, and in that instance, clarifying the situation before Ceasar's bench as much as possible only makes sense.

A man drives his wife away at gunpoint with threats of death if she ever returns. The cops tell her, "He hasn't done anything yet, and besides, he's a security guard. We don't think he'd do that." Naturally, he keeps the kids. Part of what he trumpets around is that she's doing drugs and is promiscuous, while he's a good, Bible believing father.

In truth, she is neither promiscuous nor a user of drugs, while he is "coming out of the closet" and using both drugs and alcohol profusely.

A few years later, she meets and joins her life to that of a protective man, who wants to help her right this situation. They must appeal to Ceasar for help, although her new champion has quite a struggle within himself over the the incredible urge to go dear hunting.

In appealing to Ceasar, they need all possible ducks in a row, to counter the sorts of things her ex says. He can think up lies nearly faster than they can be countered, although in each case it turns out that his lies are in reality autobiographical.

A marriage license was purchased and processed. It DID come up in the legal proceedings, repeatedly, and was a help. Justice prevailed, or at least the wrong situation has been turned around. The fallout from those years, however, continues.

I'm not sure that a "marriage license" is the right thing for the government to use, however. I fully agree that they've got no business determining who can or can't marry. However, the function of recording who is and isn't married does seem to be an appropriate public function. As does the function of settling disputes such as the above (and make no mistake, her champion's life was threatened by the angry, gun-owning ex as well, who has subsequently served time for gun involved terroristic threats to a citizen in a fit of road rage), where force may well be required to enforce the decision.

On the whole, I agree that the creation of a family unit should have more to do with contract law than family law. However, I am glad that a system exists, howeer flawed, for dealing with situations such as the above.

 

[steve]

yup,
marriage is just another thing that we have handed over to the govt to control. it is not their business, but we made it their business.

 

[Mark C]

However, I am glad that a system exists, however flawed, for dealing with situations such as the above.

Bear in mind that in most states, Cecil, if some neighbor "doesn't like you", for whatever reason, and calls those 'authorities' with a claim that you are "abusing" your child or wife, there WILL be an arrest made, there will almost certainly be a "no contact" or "restraining order" put in place immediately, and that marriage WILL be "put asunder" instantly and without trial. Tens of thousands of dollars of legal costs and months of time may be the LEAST of the impacts.

Do not think for a minute that it "cannot happen here".

And anyone who considers having more than one helpmeet (or anything else that puts the Word of God ahead of Caesar) needs to be very sure that all of his house is aware of the consequences of inviting the prince of this world into their relationship - even if it is something as apparently innocuous as a phone call.

Sadly, Doc, the state has a habit of making "presumptions" (check the law dictionary) when it comes to who we serve, and particularly whether we are "in commerce" or not. (Most people are not at all aware of a simple but stunning truth: private transportation via a personal car does NOT require a license. But words like "motor vehicle", as opposed to car, and verbs like "operate" distinguish the truth for those properly versed in legalspeak. The trouble is, most cops are as ignorant of those subtle distinctions as most of those who used to be their bosses.) In a nation of men, not of Law (much less His Law!), it is a FAR different thing to have a "right" than it is to exercise it!

Our Master was not kidding, even in the least. One cannot serve two masters, and "friendship with the world is enmity with God". It is time to be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves", and "come out of her" in every way that He leads us to do so.

 

[ravmoshe]

I agree Doc. The state has no business in regulating marriage. In the Garden of Eden only YHWH was present and its falls under His jurisdiction alone.