• 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.

Getting the state out of marriage

Doc

Doc

Member
Real Person
Found this article on the web-site for Backwoods Home Magazine, something I have been reading lately:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ ... 127lw.html

Getting the state out of marriage

By John Silveira

There's a new TV "reality" show on TLC called Sister Wives. It's about a polygamous family: Kody Brown, his 3 wives, their 13 children, and a soon-to-be (maybe already) fourth wife as well as the 3 children she's bringing with her. Because I don't have a TV, I became aware of it as a news item on the Internet. In that news item, I also discovered that the Utah Attorney General's office is supposed to be looking into Brown and his family. Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and it's a felony in Utah where the Brown family lives. Despite this, polygamy is still practiced in this country and, though the stereotype is that it's something only fundamentalist Mormons covertly engage in (estimates range from 8,000 to 60,000 polygamous Mormon marriages), it's also found among some American Muslims (estimates run from 50,000 to 100,000).

As a libertarian, I've asked against whom that kind of felony is being committed. As near as I can tell, it's committed against the sensibilities or religious beliefs of those who are against it.

However, it appears as though the the Attorney General's office is not likely to investigate it. They say they have just so many resources and they'd rather use them to investigate serious crimes. Good for them.

I've long thought I had the answer to the problems with polygamy (both polygyny — multiple wives, and polyandry — multiple husbands) as well as gay marriage, another one that seems to stir emotions. It's simple — get the state out of marriage. That's right, no more marriage licenses. Even when I applied for and got my own license some 30 years ago, I didn't understand why I needed the permission or blessings of the state, its politicians, and its bureaucrats to get married.

The reason the state is still involved in marriage at all, as far as I can tell, is that it's a religious holdover. But you don't need a marriage license to have babies, live "in sin," and live as gay couples. In fact, a guy can have a retinue of girlfriends all bearing his children, just like a polygamist, and nobody looks twice, even if he's not supporting them. But let him try to make them "legal" and, even if he's supporting them all, the authorities are at his door with their pitchforks and torches.

However, even if the state comes after Brown, he may dodge the bullet because he's only "legally" married to one of the women. The others, he says, are "spiritual unions." In other words, they're like the unions so many other people living, sleeping, and having babies together have who the police ignore.

But, in the event of arrests, the Brown family has engaged the services of a constitutional lawyer, Jonathan Turley. Why a lawyer who specializes in constitutional law? Turley has long been a critic of anti-polygamy laws. I would imagine, for starters, he might present a defense on the grounds that laws prohibiting plural marriages are based on religion and cite separation of church and state. But, more pointedly, he argues "unequal treatment." He points out, "... a person can live with multiple partners and even sire children from different partners so long as they do not marry. However, when that same person accepts a legal commitment for those partners "as a spouse," we jail them." Just what I've said.

One friend told me he thought we should have marriage licenses because the state has an interest in the family.

"What kind?" I asked. Do you want it to make marriage and divorce easier? More difficult? Make it illegal to have babies without its permission? What?

He didn't answer.

Another said his only gripe against gay marriage is that he feels as though members of a gay couple shouldn't get tax benefits if single people, like himself, can't.

"You're right!" I exclaimed to him. "When I say get the state out of marriage, I meant all the way. If an insurance company wants to confer benefits on married people, good for them, but getting the state out of marriage means getting rid of tax benefits or mandating that married and single people should be treated differently. Treat everyone equally.

There is only one reason the state should be involved in marriage. It's the only reason I can think of that the state should be involved in any contract: to act as arbitrator if the contract dissolves and is contested. As a libertarian, I see mediating disputes as one of the few legitimate functions of government.

By the way, I've got to mention, I finally saw an episode of Sister Wives at a friend's house. As we watched she said she didn't see how one man could keep four women happy; but one woman could keep four men happy. I see what's on her polyandrous mind. And in case you're wondering, I do not want multiple wives. However, if a bunch of consenting adults want to engage in such a marriage, I feel it's none of my business, your business, or the state's.

And, if you're religious, keep in mind, getting the state out of marriage does not necessarily get God out of your marriage. You can still get married in a church, have it blessed, sanctified, and French fried, for all I care. You don't have to pass up any of that. I just don't think your marriage, or anyone else's, has to be blessed by the state.

By the way, you do know what the actual punishment for bigamy is, don't you? Two mothers-in-law.


http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ ... 127lw.html
 
There is only one reason the state should be involved in marriage. It's the only reason I can think of that the state should be involved in any contract: to act as arbitrator if the contract dissolves and is contested. As a libertarian, I see mediating disputes as one of the few legitimate functions of government.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the central issue from what I am seeing in the question of how does government relate.

The state should not determine what adult can enter into a contract. People should have the freedom to enter a contract or covenant. But then there needs to be some body, government or religious body, to carry out either Matthew 18 functions for kingdom citizens or a civil government body to carry out Romans 13 functions for breaches in that contract.

Some have rightly argued to remove the state from the initial entrance of a union. But then seemingly have also due to such an emphasis overemphasized this to a degree that supposedly no one else should ever have a hand in it even if things go bad.

There is apparently a better biblical balance. All adults would be able to freely enter yet have a contract or covenant that another third party that is objective can help if one party sins/violates against another in that covenant (Matt 18 issues) or contract (Rom 13 civil authority issues).

In such a model we would stress mature and responsible actions on those who voluntarily enter such unions, and give them the freedom and permission to do so, yet at the same time not reward rebellion, arrogance, or pride for those in the unions that they think they are little gods who answer to no one but themselves and thus violate their oaths, contracts, and civil agreements.
 
In general, I agree with what DocInMO and Dr. Allen posted. The only reason the state would want to license marriage is so they can claim ownership of the children! Of course, they do that anyway , even if a couple just "shacks up" without government permission.

Two adults desiring to get married should not need permission from anyone except each other, God, and (if the woman is not married and then widowed or divorced), the woman's father or his patriarchal successor if he is deceased. And in our society, most fathers have given implied consent by not caring enough about their daughters to teach them about God's plan for sex, marriage, and families. Then they act surprised and outraged when their 13- and 14-yo daughters go on un-chaperoned dates and come home pregnant. (If they are even there to know about the dating and pregnancy.)

About the only thing that the state might rightly do before a marriage or other contract is entered into would be to define at what age a person is considered to be an adult. And doing so really should not be the state's responsibility...but millions of our children are growing up without a father who is there to determine if his kids are now mature enough to enter into a contract.

Our marriage laws are the result of the overbearing political power wielded by the Roman Catholic Church from just after Constantine to about the time of the Protestant Reformation. (Roughly AD 500 to AD 1500 and often called "the Dark Ages" or "the Middle Ages.") Roman Catholic marriage doctrine was adopted from pagan Greco-Roman religion and secular Roman law, and was (to use Fr. Hillman's words) "baptized" and called Christian. It has absolutely no Biblical basis whatsoever other than the requirement that a marriage is to be between two people of the opposite sex.

The mess our society is in now is the result of abandoning God's plan in favor of pagan concepts. Pastor John Whitten wrote an excellent article about God's Blueprint that is now in the teaching articles section, so I won't re-hash what he wrote.
 
I really agree with this article. The government should not be telling us what we as consenting adults can and cannot do within the privacy of our own homes. Personally, the government has too much control over our lives and why should I have to have something saying I am married to anyone? I just feel what goes on behind closed doors is my business not anyone else's.
 
Hugh McBryde said:
I will repeat that the State will be in marriage as long as there is an income tax. Don't kid yourself that the state wants to license marriage so that it can "own" your kids. Do you really believe that the absence of a legal marriage stops them from nosing around in your children's lives?
Click to expand...


Exactly.

However, the real issue is that the State (not state) has the interest and CAN nose into your affairs with or without a marriage license because all of you have Social Security Numbers, which are only legally available to wards of the STATE or public officials and public employees conducting public business. By accepting or using a SSN, you legally become wards, employees, and/officers of the STATE, and your every move, action, and cause is governed by your benefactor, the STATE.

Most persons don't know that there are TWO of everything, the Georgia state, and the STATE OF GEORGIA, the New Hampshire state, and the STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. The all caps STATES are the federal Social Security STATE's that overlap the states of the Union, and are used to monitor and control all those government employees, which is everyone with a SSN.

Lose the SSN, and reclaim your children, and the STATE has no authority over you, and the state that you live in can only inter-FEAR when you have infringed upon another's rights, such as property loss, or injury, etc. No statutory codes such as motor vehicle, food and drug, etc. (codes are not laws) can be enforced upon you. Well, they try, but if you follow the proper law and procedure to do so, they have no legal standing in court.

Let me know if anyone needs any LEGAL documentation of these truths.
 
Okay so how would you be able to work and provide for a family without a Social Security Number? I am also interested in seeing the legal proofs. Also, you can't even enroll your children in school without a ssn so how would one go about doing this?
Liz
 
I just feel what goes on behind closed doors is my business not anyone else's.
Click to expand...

It is true that in some senses government has over extended its reach beyond what is reasonable, biblical, or even of good economic fiscal policy.

Yet too, this is the issue of balance. Government does have a right to get involved in our so-called private lives if what we do "behind closed doors" is harming another against their will. For example, rape, child abuse, etc would be justifiable reasons for outside civil rulers to intervene and all of that is for the most part done behind closed doors.

Too spousal abuse where one partner beats, or uses violent agression to damage another against that person's will is reasonable grounds as well as biblical grounds for civil ruler intervention.

As for the SS number issue, the State or state, or however you want to define those positions, will not remove legal jurisdiction of local law enforcement in defending the physical rights of another. Crime by its most basic definition is a violation of one's physical personhood or property and thus if a man or woman murders another or abuses a child or spouse of partner the state or State or tribal counsel in places where it is of such nature constituted in that way the officials of that sphere have an interest to protect the innocent party from such brutal behavior. This would be so because of something we go back to in the Declaration of Independence where we affirm Natural inalienable rights. This is supported by Natural law, and is thus not something created by the government but only recognized and thus then defended. Even citizens who are not per se in civil ruler positions have the authority by Natural Law to intervene in such cases through the use of force to defend another.

On the other hand there is too Civil law. These laws are based upon oaths, promises, and voluntary agreements between parties. Civil rulers, or even ecclesiastical rulers, have justifiable grounds to intervene because if all oaths and all contracts are voided by people having complete freedom to break those then society will move towards anarchy as no person or organization will be trusted and thus the entire economic enterprise would be destroyed as trust in anyone and everyone would be eroded so bad society could not function.

So at least in the most basic sense civil rulers, who are indeed without a doubt ministers within God's overall kingdom, do have some grounds to be involved in our lives as we are citizens of two realms, God's spiritual kingdom as well as in God's natural civil kingdom realm.

In the civil sphere actions that undermine or damage the most basic human rights, inalienable rights that we are born with, such as the right to life and liberty, when anyone, spouse, parents, or any other person does something to damage us or hinder us towards that then it is not only legal but desirable for civil rulers to intervene for the overall good of society. Child abuse, spousal abuse, such as with violence or extreme neglect of care in the case with children, gives ample reason for outside civil ruler intervention.
 
You CAN work without a SSN, and you CAN enroll children without a SSN. The social security act and the governing laws make it criminal for anyone to compel you to give your SSN against your will for any reason, even for a bank account.

You will most definitely have to educate the ignorant public officials or officers that tell you that you can't do these things, but it can be done. As an example, if you call Social Security and ask if it is voluntary, they will say that it is. If you then tell them that you would like to opt out, they will tell you that you cannot because they are TOLD that you cannot. However, there is a government FORM that is the lawful form for dis-enrolling from the Social Security scam. The government HAS to have this, according to law. The kicker is that the government has the official form, but is now not printing it anymore to make it more difficult than ever to become free.

The last thing that they want is LESS people to borrow money against, and the slave surveillance number is the key method for them raising the federal debt, and also the only method for which they can get around the Constitution and deprive you of rights with your own implied consent.

IF you are looking for legal backing for this, settle in for a long and tedious journey. A good place to start is with the following legal brief detailing exactly why you are not eligible for Socialist Security in the first place, and how you are tricked into it, and what the legal ramifications of using a SSN really are.

http://sedm.org/Forms/AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf
 
The point there was about the SS number and the State or state's resultant authority. I wanted to clarify that even if one does voluntarily disassociate from the SS system that this does not mean the person is totally outside the sphere of all civil rule and authority, however one wants to define the terms of state or State or in other ways.

I doubt you mean that but I have met some who believe people can remove themselves and their family and/or even children from any oversight of others in the civil sphere. Such is not true, nor with the depravity of man so real is it even desirable.

I met one fella who too was an advocate of that website and ideas, some of which are indeed helpful ideas, and he gave me his run down on this and in his words he said: "What I do here on my property is my business. This is sovereign territory and no civil ruler has any right to come onto my land no matter what we do here regardless of how terrible it might be. My land and my family domain is within my sovereign rule alone."

Such ideas as that is what I am referencing. A mere removal or the SS number, despite all of the points granted and allowed by those who desire to do so, would still not produce this type of idea as set forth by this fella as noted above. There is a place for civil rulers to defend those who cannot defend themselves when there is physical violence or contract violations.

We can even go back to the Mayflower compact and see that people in their most basic forms of societal living realize that we need external government oversight because as John Adamas and others so well stated, "people are not angels and thus we need government." Granted, we by and large have too much intervention today for too many things that are not within the sphere of civil rulers, but even so some oversight and rule is necessary until Christ returns to establish the Christocracy where he rules as legislator, king, and judge.
 
On, but I suspect Paul NTA has SOOO much fun tweaking the noses of those "officials" who are overstepping their truly legal grounds! Which would be most of them, most of the time!

Problem is, the rest of us don't know how to do the same, or perhaps they'd pipe down!
 
We're going nowhere trying to "deregulate" marriage and trying to get out of the social security system. These are all idealistic pipe dreams. Maybe in a generation or two we might accomplish that, but we need to take interim steps that approximate what marriage ought to be. One of those interim steps is this:

As long as marriage as a "legal function" or state involvement or the state at least believes itself to be involved, polygyny needs to be legal.

To go off the grid on marriage you'll need to dismantle the income tax system .
 
To go off the grid on marriage you'll need to dismantle the income tax system .
Click to expand...
The income tax system is illegal. The amendment authorizing it was never ratified by the required 2/3 of the states. I'm not sure if that or that Ponzi scheme called social security was the biggest fraud foisted off on the American populace by our beloved government in the 20th century. Or maybe it was the Federal Reserve System, or going off the gold standard. All four were pretty big frauds.

But just try not paying income tax. Uncle Sam has a MUCH bigger gun than you and I.

20 years ago, when I lived in CA, I went to my filing cabinet and started adding up all the taxes I could readily identify as having paid during the previous year. In less than an half an hour, it had added up to over 55% of my gross income - and that was just taxes easily identifiable as such. It did not include hidden taxes, such as the increase in the cost of groceries because the grocery store had to cover the taxes they paid, for example. Nor did it include the hidden tax of inflation.

IMHO, well over 95% of what the Federal government does is unconstitutional. To make it worse, well over 95% of the population doesn't care. Too many were willing to trade freedom for security - and as a result, we have ended up with neither. Too bad the minority of us who do care must suffer right along with the majority who don't. The inmates are running the asylum.

But on the bright side, God is still on His Throne, and someday soon, we will hear the shofar sounding to call us home. The dead in Christ will rise first, then those of us who are alive and remain. I can almost hear Gabriel inhaling... :D
 
It's still pointless to point that out PolyDoc, because no one will through away the income tax system until it's replaced with something else.
 
Doing what we can with where we're at has merit. It may not be bad to talk about ideal situations, but we are where we are. Step by step is the way to go.
 
In a sinful world, ideals are like limits in Calculus, you never get there. On the way toward the limit, there are some situations that don't even seem to approach the value the limit embodies. If you're not a student of Algebra or Calculus I'm sorry for being so obscure. Essentially the values on a graph can rise to infinity on one side of a limit, and then plunge to a "negative" infinity on the opposite side of the limit while the limit itself occupies some number like "-2," in the example below.

As you can see, the attempts to reach -2, approaching the problem from either side, don't look like -2 at all, they go wildly in other directions.

introduction_limit_4.gif

I would say that trying to get Biblical Patriarchy and Marriage to look exactly like it did in the Old Testament is going to involve going places that don't seem to be remotely close to such an ideal.

And let's remember. Biblical Patriarchy itself wasn't "ideal." The world was already sinful.

We don't have any idea really what the ideal would look like in a sinless world. We only know what the "best case in bad situation" looked like before sinful man and the "world" marred family and marriage so badly, that it is as it is today.

We have to keep that in mind when trying to build Biblical Families in the current legal environment. Esther and Mordecai did not get the King to repeal Haman's decree, they countered it. Successfully.
 
Hugh McBryde said:
Esther and Mordecai did not get the King to repeal Haman's decree, they countered it. Successfully.
Click to expand...
How do we counter the garbage that's going on now? 50% divorce rate, ~10 million homes headed by single mothers, and all the rest.

Granted, OT patriarchy was not the ideal. The Garden of Eden was. But, as you pointed out, we have no way of knowing what marriage and the family would look like had Adam not sinned.

Or maybe we do. Look at Christ and His Church. That gives us a glimpse of what might have been.

Do we really want to return to OT-style patriarchy? That might be a model we should strive for, but with some changes. For instance, the way it played out, the family goat often had more rights than a wife! (What's changed? The family dog has more rights than the wife in far too many monogamous families!) But then, that goes back to the fact that we live in a sinful, fallen world, and without God's Grace working in our lives, we will live by the principle that "might makes right."

Maybe we should use OT patriarchy as a model that needs improvement - and that improvement starts at Calvary.

Doing what we can with where we're at has merit. It may not be bad to talk about ideal situations, but we are where we are. Step by step is the way to go.
Click to expand...
We should discuss the ideal, but with the realization that we will never reach it this side of Heaven. I like your analogy of limits in Calculus. That is similar to our walk with the Lord, and the ongoing process of sanctification. I'm not perfect yet, but God is still working on me - step by step, using what I allow Him to work with.
 
How do we counter the garbage that's going on now? 50% divorce rate, ~10 million homes headed by single mothers, and all the rest.
Click to expand...

Don't divorce, council those thinking of divorce and help bring them stability, and marry or find someone for the single mothers where applicable. Most importantly when possible teach the children of single mothers how to avoid the vicious cycle. As far as possible, get Christians of all types to seriously look at what they believe at so they transform and start the embers of revival.

None of those things requires getting the state out of marriage, and only one requires polygamy be recognized. Even if marriage was deregulated we would have the same problems and the same objectives on that front.

You're right we should talk about ideal situations. The purpose of that is to see what we can do next to get there. You're question is a good one, and perhaps we should start a thread centered around exchanging ideas on how we can answer it where we are with what we have. How do we counter divorce and single mothering at home and in our community? Ideally there would be no divorce and the only single mother would be a widow, but that's the impossible -2 on the curve, but our the next steps should be fairly easy since we are so far from our goal.

I like the calculus analogy too :) Very nice.
 
Aaah sweet idealism.

Humans are humans, you can't tell people they cannot divorce because they will. Or else they won't get married in the first place, in which case what do you do? Compel them?

You can't be against the State and then use their power for social control.

Either people have freedom or they don't. There is no "freedom to your way of thinking".

B
 
Isabella said:
You can't be against the State and then use their power for social control.
Click to expand...
I'm not against the State, just against the State doing more than they should. And I certainly don't have any desire for the State to control society beyond enforcing certain rights, such as life, liberty, and property. (I read somewhere that "property" was left out of the Declaration of Independence for poetic reasons. "Pursuit of Happiness" sounded more elegant or something. Not sure if that is true, though.) The State should not control marriage other than to arbitrate between individuals AFTER one or both marriage partners breaks the covenant (contract) they entered into and all other types of arbitration have failed. (The same should apply to any contractual relationship, not just marriage.)

The problem is, no two individuals will agree on just what is the State's proper role. A very few would be happy with total anarchy, and a very few would be happy with absolute dictatorship - as long as they are the dictators! The proper role of government is somewhere between those two extremes.

We can not take Mosaic law defining the ancient Israelite government and apply it to our modern American society, since ancient Israel was a theocracy. We can take elements of that and apply it to American society. But again, no two theologians will agree on just what should be enforced by the State and what should not!

We can not even take the 10 Suggestions (er, Commandments :D ) and make those law, because most of them deal with an individual's heart, not the outward expression of what is in that heart. Only God knows another person's heart, we humans don't. Imagine being tossed in jail because the Thought Police accused you of coveting your neighbor's wife... :o

The real solution would be for everybody to agree with me. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top