• 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.

Bigamist (A lotta fog in Italy)

Fraud....

The preacher officiating the wedding knows good and well that the vows are meaningless and her promise of 'till death do we part' is of no affect. It is truly just pageantry. Not to say it doesn't have benefits, but they aren't legal ones. And they'll admit this too fairly readily if you start asking them under what conditions it is ok for a poor downtrodden woman to leave.

The default position for most women is to stick with their man until something better comes along. They then make their vow, knowing the 'till death do we part' is a lie and will jet if things get bad enough or of something better comes along. They implicitly induce the husband to marry on the basis of those vows which they know to both be a lie and unenforceable.

Worse yet, it is not at all unheard of for the woman to fake a pregnancy in order to convince the man to pop the question. It is so bad there is even a booming trade in positive pregnancy tests to this very end.

Probably the biggest problem though is a structural one: the contract is unconscionable.

The vows are legally null and void, unenforceable. Any other contract you could get a court order to enforce the terms. This one, courts will happily violate it. Not only that but while one party (the woman) is rewarded for breaking the contract and being released from the terms the other party (the man) is required to uphold the terms for the benefit of the first party even after it is broken. Completely one sided. And there is nothing the man can do to negotiate away from/around this.

Really though, this is all an academic argument, fun though that is. It would be foolish to enter a second marriage when the first wasn't enthusiastic about it. And few to no one cares about the vows. Really only you and God and maybe your wife. Maybe. Well, at least your part of them anyway.
 
Within our culture we have different points of view regarding what a marriage is and what it's for. Among ourselves we can talk about how we're right and everybody else is wrong, but out in the big, wide world there are a lot of different ways to look at this.

And that's just if we're taking a snapshot today. The culture is constantly changing as individuals constantly change. We didn't always think what we think today about marriage, and if we're open-minded and humble, we understand that down the road our views may continue to evolve (who among us claims to have "arrived"?). And all around us, individuals are going through the same process of changing what they believe about marriage over time.

For every one of us that arrives—by sudden inspiration or diligent study—at the conclusion that plural marriage 'is a thing', there is some number of others that are deciding that conventional/traditional monogamous marriage is not the best way to live or even a desirable way to live, but for entirely different and often 180° oppositional reasons.

When a traditionally-married ('forsaking all others') Christian couple starts to investigate biblical marriage, the nicest thing I can think of to say about that is it's a real eye-opener! ;) (For Monty Python fans: "NO ONE expects God to approve of plural marriage!")

-------
Excursus: I stopped here to do a little research on the whole "forsaking all others" thing, because my foggy memory was questioning whether that's really a part of the vow. Turns out I was on to something.

The phrase "forsaking all others" is not a part of the traditional wedding vow. It first appeared in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer in 1549 as a part of what's called "the Declaration of Consent".

“Will you have this man/woman to be your husband/wife; to live together in the covenant of marriage? Will you love him/her, comfort him/her, honor and keep him/her, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, be faithful to him/her as long as you both shall live?”

Correct Answer: "I will."​

Now maybe only a lawyer can geek out over stuff like this, but to me it's interesting, to say the least, that this whole 'forsaking all others' thing was an add-on about the same time Trent and the Counter-Reformation were in full swing, and it's not even a part of the actual marriage vow, as originally structured.

Many of y'all have seen or worked with legal documents that start with "recitals" that tee up the actual "agreement". The recitals are not the agreement, but they provide useful context for understanding the actual agreement. Seems to me the same thing is going on here.

None of this really changes anything I'm saying in this post, just a matter for further inquiry and discussion (hence "excursus"). Just wanted to throw it out there while I'm in the flow. Back to the post....
-------

So back to this moment when the previously unsuspecting married couple is confronted with this new truth that, shall we say, rocks their boat.

The sad fact is that churches routinely marry (after all, Trent said no marriage is legit unless it's performed in front of a priest and witnesses) couples that have no business being married at all, let alone married in a church. (Call me a cynic if you will, but that's a nice little income stream most pastors and churches wouldn't want to give up.) In a perfect world (ha!), couples who were trying to live for God would be married in their faith communities according to what they understand to be God's will for their lives, and all others could just go to a JP or file a declaration of informal marriage or something.

Alas, our churchy marriages—the context for what for most of us will be the most important life decision we make—are often the least thought through. We just do the cultural dance without really thinking through what it is we're agreeing to. And a lot of people marry in a church just for the pomp and the ceremony, or if they're religious then for the feeling that God is smiling on their day and blessing their intentions regardless of how much or little God had to do with their choices or their understanding or their intentions.

So years later along comes this new understanding of what marriage is about and how it's supposed to work. The moment of truth is this: When you went through that ceremony and said what you said, were you saying it as a believer who sincerely wants to honor God in all you do (albeit sincerely mistaken about what that might entail), or were you saying it because you want to fit in with the surrounding culture and legitimate your sex life?

The corollary is: Were you marrying a man/woman that you thought would fit together with you in the cultural way, or were you marrying someone in the Lord that you thought would lead/follow you through anything He leads you to and through?

So the big divide here is: Is our marriage really "in the Lord" at all? Is it about obedience to God, or is it about something else? Because if it's about obedience to God, then we should be open to improvements in our understanding of what God's will is leading to improvements in our obedience. And if we're not open to improvements in our understanding of God's will actually changing the way we live, then maybe it wasn't about obeying God in the first place.

The argument over vows is just a proxy for the argument over how you can really tell when God is leading you to do something that seems outrageous and what it means to be led by the Spirit (see Rom 8:14, Gal 5:18).

Men, if your wife doesn't believe you when you claim that you are "doing this for God", then that's what you need to work on. Why is that? Why does she suspect that you have or straight up accuse you of having selfish motives? Fix that before you move forward; don't just steamroll over her objections with "but it's in the bible" and expect her to follow you anywhere, let alone into plural marriage. Show her what it means to be led by the Spirit, don't just tell her.

But if this really is something God is leading you into (biblical marriage, not plural marriage), then your obedience to Christ comes before any particular outcome with your wife. Lot moved forward; his wife looked back—that's on her, not him. And according to Christ, leaving a wife for His and the gospel's sake is on the table (they don't teach that in Sunday School these days, do they?), so while it may be the hardest thing you've ever done, the possibility that it could happen can't be ruled out dogmatically.

Just do it in love; you owe her that much. Your wife is being tested at the very core of her being. If she hasn't already left you, show some gratitude. And some patience. Remember the 'weaker vessel' stuff and giver her time. And be 100% sure you are following God every step of the way....
 
@rockfox and I cross-posted, but I wanted to piggyback on his post re the pageantry/fakeness of most church marriages. By not enforcing the actual terms of the vows as they are made, we (Christendom, the church) have created a situation in which we are going through an elaborate kabuki just to make it appear that marriage (and the bride herself, of course) are Really Important in some kind of romantic fairy tale way, while actually having no practical meaning whatsoever. It is very selective, to say the least, to suddenly get outraged over the 'forsaking all others' thing as if that's an argument against polygamy, while routinely letting women and men off the hook for every other part of the vow.
 
True story re pageantry: The data say that the length of a marriage varies inversely with the dollar amount spent on the wedding. I kid you not....
 
Galatians 5:18 brought me to this...

But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law....the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
Click to expand...

When I think about the beauty of marriage done right that passage describes it to a t. All the more so with 3 involved as the love grows greater still.
 
andrew said:
True story re pageantry: The data say that the length of a marriage varies inversely with the dollar amount spent on the wedding. I kid you not....
Click to expand...
Even without data, I would expect this to be true. Those big events are usually an indication of just how self absorbed the bride is in seeing her princess day come true. It's all about her then, and it has to be all about her thereafter.....yuck!
 
andrew said:
For starters, typical wedding vows aren't to God, they are to the betrothed. God is a witness, but the wedding vow is not by its terms a promise to God.
Click to expand...
Agreed they are definitely vows to each other. For me these vows were made after I had already committed my whole life to follow and obey Christ.

So, as I have prayed over this matter and read the scriptures, it is clear to me that my commitment to Christ is what takes priority over my vow to another.

It doesn't change that I should have sought out the truth of the scriptures more thoroughly before making any vow. Really I would not of vowed at all, but merely stated my commitments because that seems to be more in keeping with my submission to God and letting my "yes be my yes".
 
andrew said:
@rockfox and I cross-posted, but I wanted to piggyback on his post re the pageantry/fakeness of most church marriages. By not enforcing the actual terms of the vows as they are made, we (Christendom, the church) have created a situation in which we are going through an elaborate kabuki just to make it appear that marriage (and the bride herself, of course) are Really Important in some kind of romantic fairy tale way, while actually having no practical meaning whatsoever. It is very selective, to say the least, to suddenly get outraged over the 'forsaking all others' thing as if that's an argument against polygamy, while routinely letting women and men off the hook for every other part of the vow.
Click to expand...
Well said, if we treat the whole thing so carelessly and then get upset about the "forsaking all others" then our motives should be in question.
 
Last edited:
Paulsen said:
Agreed they are definitely vows to each other. For me these vows were made after I had already committed my whole life to follow and obey Christ.

So, as I have prayed over this matter and read the scriptures, it is clear to me that my commitment to Christ is what takes priority over my vow to another.

It doesn't change that I should have sought out the truth of the scriptures more thoroughly before making any vow. Really I would not of vowed at all, but merely stated my commitments because that seems to be more in keeping with my submission to God and letting my "yes be my yes".
Click to expand...
Interesting take. Thank you.
 
andrew said:
Fraud requires intent, and I don't think anyone involved in a typical western marriage is intending to fraudulently induce the bride or groom to say what they say. Everybody concerned believes at the time that they are saying the correct and appropriate vows for God-ordained marriage, so the issue would be more one of mutual mistake than deliberate deception. Then the question becomes 'how do you convince your wife it was all just a big mistake?'....

I'm more interested in rockfox's adhesion contract approach. Adhesion contracts are form contracts that are offered to consumers on a "take it or leave it" basis, without any opportunity to negotiate specific terms. Under common law such a contract (or some of its terms) could be found unconscionable (against the conscience, or basically just unreasonable), on the theory that one party is taking advantage of its out-of-proportion bargaining power to dictate terms to the other party.

A couple of problems, though. First, like the fraud allegation, who is the perpetrator here? Is it the woman? Women, generally? The church? Western Civilization? Or is everybody (including whomever officiates) just misguided but otherwise innocent of wrongdoing? Second, these days just about every contract we sign is an adhesion contract, and more and more courts are finding them enforceable more and more of the time. We can't assume that just because a contract is found to be an adhesion contract it will therefore automatically be held to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

So I think we're left with "mutual mistake". When both parties to a contract are mistaken about a material fact, the agreement could be found void or voidable, depending on the kind of mistake.

I have an appointment at 10:00, so I have to jet, but this may have opened up an interesting line of reasoning, or at least I have some observations I'll offer later about what happens to women when they are confronted with this idea that what they thought was the fundamental bargain they were making is all just a big cultural mistake.
Click to expand...
IMO, it is a mistake, but what we fail to see it is a 3 party marriage with the State. There is fraud, but not by the man or woman. One must obtain and read Peter A. Alces’s books, “The Law of Fraudulent Transactions.” It exposes a lot. It exposes the The Federal Reserve, marriages, etc, etc. Also, one needs to get the legal definition of “license” in “Black’s Law Dictionary.” Any edition will do, but the 2nd thru 5th is better. Also, words like fraud, marriage, wife, person, adultery, etc need examination (Big can of worms). If you get mad after reading merely these definitions and studying this, that’s normal. ;) What matters most is, what is the “remedy.” Yeah, try to go into a courtroom and claim God’s Word says this and that. Then, when you receive a stay at the luxurious “Gray Bar Motel,” realize that is not the “remedy.” :D Realize, if it’s taken “them” generations to get “us” in this, it won’t be easy stepping out. The original drafting of the 13th amendment eliminated all slavery and servitude. The final draft abolished slavery and only involuntary servitude. It’s not their fault you volunteered. :rolleyes: Finally, all great points. Love the discussions.
 
What-a you no get? Fohg! Fohg! Ees a big-a mist, no?

But ees no obvious. Zees "Pal-are-mine" leave us a-funny wit no clue. How you call it: a mister, a myst— eh, I don' know.
 
Curtis Gerhart said:
IMO, it is a mistake, but what we fail to see it is a 3 party marriage with the State. There is fraud, but not by the man or woman. One must obtain and read Peter A. Alces’s books, “The Law of Fraudulent Transactions.” It exposes a lot. It exposes the The Federal Reserve, marriages, etc, etc. Also, one needs to get the legal definition of “license” in “Black’s Law Dictionary.” Any edition will do, but the 2nd thru 5th is better. Also, words like fraud, marriage, wife, person, adultery, etc need examination (Big can of worms). If you get mad after reading merely these definitions and studying this, that’s normal. ;) What matters most is, what is the “remedy.” Yeah, try to go into a courtroom and claim God’s Word says this and that. Then, when you receive a stay at the luxurious “Gray Bar Motel,” realize that is not the “remedy.” :D Realize, if it’s taken “them” generations to get “us” in this, it won’t be easy stepping out. The original drafting of the 13th amendment eliminated all slavery and servitude. The final draft abolished slavery and only involuntary servitude. It’s not their fault you volunteered. :rolleyes: Finally, all great points. Love the discussions.
Click to expand...


Looking forward to reading that book! Thank you. Also to appear in court under gods law is quite a skill. I have some experience with it and it's too long of a conversation to get into here, but I have a feeling if I get to know you all better it's going to be a worthwhile conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top