• 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.

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage

frankmaui

New Member
Hello Comrades,

I was really into this article found on the web until I got to reason #5....hehehe....
Pastor Trewhella was doing great until he used that flaky comparison!!
Read and enjoy! Comment and jest!

http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/marriagelicense.htm

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License

by Pastor Matt Trewhella

Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This pamphlet attempts to answer the question - why should we not get one?

1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.



2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.

3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.

4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.

By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.

5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."

See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State.

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime.

History of Marriage Licenses in America



George Washington was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

What Should We Do?

Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically. (As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God's law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying.)

You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.

When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

(Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.)

This pamphlet is not comprehensive in scope. Rather, the purpose of this pamphlet is to make you think and give you a starting point to do further study of your own. If you would like an audio sermon regarding this matter, just send a gift of at least five dollars in cash to: Mercy Seat Christian Church 10240 W. National Ave. PMB #129 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53227.

http://www.mercyseat.net)
 
This maybe quite a dumb question, but what's the point of the pastor/minister/priest/whatever? I don't see the need for this 3rd party.

Surely a marriage contract is like any other contract, like an employment contract. "By the power vested in me, I now pronounce you employer and employee.", or "borrower and lender", etc etc..... ridiculous! A contract is between 2 parties, full stop.

When God married Israel at Mt Sinai, Moses was the groomsman/best man, i.e. he acted as the representative of God to the bride. Moses was a prophet (God's word --> man), not a priest (man's prayers --> God), that was Aaron's role, and he was silent.

There were no bridesmaids/maids of honour either, unless that was the role of 70 that went to the wedding feast to consummate the wedding, see Ex 24:3-11. This was a polygamist marriage of 12 wives: "they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient." Ex 24:7 (KJV) God later divorced the House of Israel (Jer 3:8), but not the House of Judah. If he had only 1 wife, he could not divorce 10/12ths of her. He could not keep the hands about because they were useful, and send away that mouth of hers. Anyway, Ezek 23 & Jer 3:8 say God had sister wives, as did Jacob, and without sin.

Biblical contracts/marriages are sealed with a meal:

*) When a man and a virgin have sex, the woman's father has the right not to permit marriage, therefore sex does not seal marriage. See Ex 22:16-17 & Deut 22:28-29
*) Harlotry is not marriage, there is a short term contract, not a life long one. No meal.
*) Judah (whom must have been accustomed to partaking of harlots, thus giving Tamar the idea – a celibate man could not have been tempted so very easily in this manner.) did not marry Tamar. Refer to Genesis 38.
*) God did not have sex with Israel on the side of Mount Sinai, rather a meal was had with the representatives of the bride.
*) Consummation of the new covenant for the believer is the Lord's table, not his bed.
*) The saints are invited to the marriage feast of the lamb, not the marriage bed.

No???
 
There are no examples, mandates, laws in the entirety of scripture which even hint at marriages/weddings occurring in the presence of, or under the watchful eye of a priest, a governor, captain, judge or in an official government office or church. Not one place, ever. Anywhere.
 
Thanks!

I thought I'd missed something.
 
:) One of the greatest values you can get out of reading all of scripture, and doing it over and over again, is you begin to have instant recognition, for what is not in it.

This is especially important (that by my count), God forbids adding to his word, more often than he forbids subtracting from it.

The parties to marriage are, scripturally, husband, wife, father/guardian of the bride, father/guardian of the groom, and the LORD.

In a second marriage there is no need for the father/guardian role. The only written agreement it would seem that is spoken of in a scriptural marriage, is a writ of divorcement. The only agreement in marriage that needs to be in writing is it's dissolution. Marriage is a contract defined by God, and we can't add to or subtract from it. We can make agreements that go along with it, but they are not part of the marriage itself. Maybe that's why we don't need to put it in writing, it already has been, in the Bible.
 
Just for the fun of being a bit contrary ...

I do believe that Biblical marriage is a "covenant", not a "contract". A covenant is a contract on a LOT of steroids! :D Sorta like a Monster truck compared to a Smart Car.


Second, for a bit more contrary fun ...

Where does the groom's Father come into play? I don't see that anywhere in Scripture particularly. A man is supposed to LEAVE his parents and establish himself as an independent entity ... seemingly as a pre-requisite to marriage. Though you might have found something that I missed, Hugh.

The only two marriages that come to mind, Scripturally, where the fella's parents were involved were Isaac & Rebecca (which doesn't seem to have been a particularly happy union), and Samson telling his folks to get a girl for him (again, not much of a role model.) Am I missing something beyond tradition?
 
I agree that "Covenant" is the better term. Once someone "contracts" with God though, I don't think it makes much difference to us, in terms of how we behave.
 
Hugh McBryde said:
:) One of the greatest values you can get out of reading all of scripture, and doing it over and over again, is you begin to have instant recognition, for what is not in it.

Amen to that. Fully toured the King James several times, likewise for Green's Literal Translation, and now its Farrar Fenton's turn for the cover to cover treatment.

Was wondering if I'd hit a wood vs trees scope issue, or if in fact this was just another item of non-reformed Romish traditional baggage from Egypt. There ain't no hope in that dope of a pope, and his minions wont grant me authorisation to wed.
 
CecilW said:
Just for the fun of being a bit contrary ...

I do believe that Biblical marriage is a "covenant", not a "contract". A covenant is a contract on a LOT of steroids! :D Sorta like a Monster truck compared to a Smart Car.

Smart Cars are surprisingly roomy, I digress.

To be a little contrary myself, if a marriage covenant/contract is sealed by the wedding breakfast, does the first time husband has intercourse with his virgin bride and the hymen is broken, resulting in blood, does that then become a blood covenant?

The way I read Exodus 21, in vs 7 & 8, a man can engage/betroth a wife (if one lies with a betrothed woman, he is guilty of adultery and is put to death, not so with an unbetrothed girl, so sex does not consummate a marriage), and then he can give that same woman to be a wife for his son in vs 9. If there was an initial sexual union, then the son would be sleeping with his father's wife, ala Reuben & 1 Cor 5:1-6 (Which indicates New Testament church polygamy, his father had more than 1 wife as he wasn't sleeping with his mother)

Therefore, marriage looks rather like the transfer of responsibility to another man, with the option of sex. We don't really think that Solomon actually slept with all 700 of his wives, do we???

I read Exodus 21:10 "duty of marriage", not to be sex, but rather to spend time with the woman, to bring her happiness and joy, to listen to her complaints, to answer her concerns and guide/teach her. Just like our heavenly father listens to our prayers, all saints get equal time with him. And if a man can not spare the time from his existing duties, he would be deceiving her, and likewise, he can not reduce time from his existing wives to neglect them. This gives the neglected wife (food, clothing, time) grounds for divorce: "then shall she go out free"

Yes? No???
 
The only "consummation" I have ever seen as having support, in scripture, is the payment of a bride price. If it was not paid, there are passages that suggest the betrothal is nulled out.
 
Hugh McBryde said:
The only "consummation" I have ever seen as having support, in scripture, is the payment of a bride price. If it was not paid, there are passages that suggest the betrothal is nulled out.

Which fits with Ex 21 about authority over people such as employees & wives.

So no payment => concubinage takes up definition.

If a dowry (e.g. the 7 years labour for each of Leah and Rachel) is not paid to the father of the bride, the female marriage partner is a concubine. (e.g. Bilhah and Zilpah.) Notice that Laban owned Bilhah and Zilpah, as he had the rights to give them away to his daughters. They then in turn had the ownership rights/authority to give them away as concubines (Gen 35:22) to Jacob, i.e. the were not given away by their father to Jacob. Both wives had the authority to grant marriage to their handmaids. No dowry or brideprice, hence not wives but rather, concubines.

Notice that Hagar was still under Sarah's authority (Gen 16) even after getting pregnant via Abraham, as Sarah threw her out. Abraham said to Sarah, "she's your employee, do what you want with her."

Therefore, in strictly Bibilical terms, modern “marriages” are actually concubinage. There is no sin in that, but it may change our understanding of divorce a little, because we don't have wives in God's eyes.

When paying a dowry, does it not make sense to check that the father has actually the rights to accept the payment. i.e, if he did not pay for the mother of the girl, then what right does he have to accept payment for the fruit of his wife? He would be getting something for nothing. So the way I see it in pre-Christ return times when we are all property of the state (hence the state's involvement in marriage), men can not take wives, but can take concubines.
 
Craig Skinner said:
Therefore, in strictly Bibilical terms, modern 'marriages' are actually concubinage. There is no sin in that, but it may change our understanding of divorce a little, because we don't have wives in God's eyes."
Bingo. None of us may be "married." I find that to be sad, if true, but have often speculated exactly that.

A marriage requires certain events that might not even be possible any longer.
 
Back
Top