• 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.

What purpose does a marriage license serve?

Scarecrow

Scarecrow

Member
To a young married couple it may be a symbol of their commitment to each other...

To a middle aged person it may become a restriction if their spouse becomes complacent...

Some believe that their religion does not support or allow divorce, yet at any time either party licensed to another can sue to have that license revoked.

Would it not be better to leave the definition of marriage up to an individual's chosen religion and participate in it according to the structure and regulations of marriage within that particular religion?

Would the State be better off and involved in less public outcry and legal strife if it simply registered unions between consenting adults?

Luke 2:1-5 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
 
It pretty much works as an easy way to share legal rights and get things like rights to make medical decisions and share property rights and give men default rights to their children. This could be done via registration, and I would prefer it that way.
 
Brother Scarecrow,

I think along the same lines with you here.

The Libertarian party website and organization has numerous scholars who have written on this very subject. Many of the scholars are now starting to suggest this very principle. The government should not define the union beyond it being a personal union or a business/corporate union. This gives the union "justice standing," which is within the realm of the government but not religious or moral standing, something better left to the religions and personal families.

This is also something that fits with "natural law" theory instead of positive law theory, i.e. it recognizes what naturally exists within peaceful organizations but does not go beyond that to declare that union by a specific name other than personal or business/corporation type union.

We see this principle working with churches all the time. A new body arises, they want to have the ability to have property purchased under their name. So they take on a corporate status. The government sees them as a union under the non-profit corporate status. The government does not care if the union is religious, amoral, atheist, etc.

This same type of principle I think could be applied to personal unions as well, to give them just or equal standing in regard to protection and such but not to define the morality of it. It works for all of the religions in ourland so I don't see why it would not work for personal unions either.
 
A "Libertarian scholar" who denies the "self-evident Truths" of the Declaration of Independence will never be more than half right, and can never understand what true "liberty" means -- much less be "free indeed".

A "license" -- by definition in almost any 'law dictionary' is "permission from a competent authority to do that which - without such permission - is "illegal".

Where - in Scripture, or in the Constitution - is the power to ordain and define "marriage" given to any 'sovereign' but the Creator? And why would any self-proclaimed "believer" in Him go to beg permission from "another master" to do that which both YHVH and the Constitution for these united States do NOT delegate the power for that usurper to do?

Read what Exodus 21 says about when a "master gives his servant a wife":
the wife and any subsequent output from that union (children) belong to the master. "Caesar" knows that, and confirms that understanding when his servants, whether they are called "Child Protective Services" or just servants of the 'prince of this world' show up to claim their property. Hosea 4:6 confirms all that is necessary to recognize what happens to those who are ignorant...much less "reject knowledge".

The purpose of a marriage license is to transfer property rights: from an ignorant servant to that "other master".
 
Well, I see James 1:19 was not part of one's devotion yesterday. :lol:

As I was saying in that previous post, the government should ONLY recognize, NOT license, which is indeed a natural law principle.

And as I said, the government should not define any marriage, as that is clearly something that God does. People should be free to unite as they see fit so long as it is peaceable. Governments should then, from the way the 1st Amendment reads, recognize the union as either a personal or corporate union, nothing more.

Numerous Libetarian scholars have discussed this very issue to where there is the freedom to unite as a family without the need of the government to license. But if the unions are to be recognized, NOT LICENSED, in order for legal benefits to transfer from one family member to another then a recognition system does justice to that. Simply put: if John Doe marries Jane and then John dies if there is a recognition system, NOT A LICENSE to give permission, then John's property can transfer to Jane even if for some reason there was no will in place. It could go to his mate.

Government already does this with other types of unions and it could reasonably be done within the marriage realm.
 
As I was saying in that previous post, the government should ONLY recognize, NOT license, which is indeed a natural law principle.
Click to expand...

No disagreement whatsoever on that point. But there was once a nation founded on what were unanimously agreed to be "self-evident" truths -- and among those was the fact that Rights came not from any government on earth, but from the Creator.

When such a 'nation' no longer even recognizes YHVH Himself, one must ask what the value of such "recognition" is anyway. Natural law IS in fact a fine concept, and one not incompatible with His "teaching and instruction". But it has been abandoned in a nation of "men, not of Law".


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no problem with the concepts of Constitutional law, and have studied and lectured about such for quite a number of years. But I have been disabused of any illusions* on the subject, and have a good understanding as well of how those principles have been usurped. What is important remains Who we serve.

You would do well to focus on the issue of jurisdiction - both explicit and "presumed", because it is readily arguable that most claims of an "unwarrantable jurisdiction, foreign to our constitution" now arise from un-rebutted presumptions.


--------------------------------
* The fact that the Constitution no longer applies to most self-described "US Citizens" should be obvious at this point. What is NOT is WHY that is the case...and the answer is literally a legion of reasons.
 
I think understand your points Mark.

Yet from the best that I can tell God expects us to live in any country with due respect for laws even if those laws arise from pagans. Pagans can recognize natural law as much as any Christian, or least so it seems from what I read and know about law. For example, almost all pagan people recognize that murder and stealing are wrong.

If this is not what you are meaning then maybe I'm not understanding you or something. As far as a recognition is concerned our land is composed of people who are atheists, believers in the Lord, agnostics, and everything in between. All of these people have to be able to live in civil peace with one another without fighting and seeking to kill or deprive each other of natural rights.

Thus as far as a marriage license I would think it is best not to let government control that but as far as having legal attachment to citizens who desire to peacefully transfer property and the things of the like then I don't see how a recognition system would be a defiled or corrupt system.

I have read the arguments about corporation status of our nation and the thought process that now people who are in the USA are supposedly citizens of the Dictrict of Columbia and not really of the states etc. etc. along with other positions on this. But even if this is technically correct, which some show strong reasons as to why it is not, but even if one were to grant that then people are still having to work with a checks and balance system with perceived authority that is accepted by the super majority of citizens along with all three branches of government. In other words, then of consequence, if something was lost through these three banches of government by the consent of the governed then it would have to be restored through the very means it was lost, if possible.

In short, if City Hall (Congress, etc) has been lost then to retake City Hall the people can either run or strive to be out of the City, State or country, or work within the domain and jurisdiction to place the City/County/State/Congress Hall back to the proper place. Either we leave City Hall or we overtake City hall through established recognized means. But the form in which this is done would be crucial.

What I struggle with is those who want to claim they are out of the SYSTEM or they want to be out of the System in every way possible. If this is such a strong desire then why not join another country? Don't misread that as me telling you to leave. That is not what i am suggesting unless you hold to the idea that each and every citizen should be totally without any government or civil authority over them. If that were to be your position, which I doubt it is, then the best solution would be to go search for a new land and go develop it. To be totally free from a corrupt system this is exactly what the honest and brave Puritan and Pilgrims did; they totally left and went to start a new work, Colonial America.

It seems to me we either work with the system we have or leave the domain, not remain yet argue their is no legitimate jurisdiction of any government over us in certain areas. Even if the masses err on a word or phrase or misinterpret the constitution so long as the supermajority see it that way it stands as the law and thus those in that sphere have to learn how to walk as Jesus taught: to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. As long as we live in some land anywhere there will be some need for jurisdictions and then of course once granted there will be some correct elements and incorrect elements in it.Thus it seems like some jurisdiction is fine for civil unions (not licensed or permitted but recognized) as long as we are consenting to it by claiming a union and then asking by a voluntary act to have it recognized, not created, by the government. This seems to me to reduce the factor to the lowest common element that all people could agree upon, no matter from what tradition or background, and it would keep liberty in the hands of all.

At least this is how I see it for now. Maybe something shall convince me otherwise one day if I come across a better ideology.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
I think understand your points Mark.

Yet from the best that I can tell God expects us to live in any country with due respect for laws even if those laws arise from pagans. Pagans can recognize natural law as much as any Christian, or least so it seems from what I read and know about law.

If this is now [sic] what you are meaning then maybe I'm not understanding you or something.
Click to expand...

WHICH law, K.R.? The one that at some point which said your Right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", or the one that does the exact opposite? The one that says "Congress shall make NO law" -- restricting freedom of speech, press, or worship -- or the one that enacts such 'law' with impunity? The one that once required a quaint little item called a "warrant" before searches, wiretaps, and email perusal, or the one that makes King George's original general Warrants look tame by comparison?

Laws made in accord with the Constitution, or 'laws' which are by nature proof of a "jurisdiction foreign to our constitution(s)", in other words.

In general, my thesis is that there is now in place in "Amerika" a system of "private law" which few self-proclaimed "US Citizens" realize they have volunteered into (by legal presumption, failure to object, licensing, and acceptance of welfare-state "benefits - among MANY other mechanisms). (In less secular forums, I occasionally note that it really does amount to a choice to serve "another master", among an equally large array of Biblical teachings on THAT choice as well.)

Most who preach "Romans 13" don't understand either the nature of the "Supreme Law of the land" which most 'public officials' take (or once took) and oath to obey, and the alternative set of statutes and other so-called 'laws' (from regulations, ordinances, rule-making and 'public policy' to executive orders and 'emergency declarations) which directly and obviously violate it. There IS an explanation for why things which "shall not be infringed" are not just infringed, but outright prohibited - to those who have volunteered to "trade their birthright for a cup of pottage".

The concept of "private law" is ultimately no different from most other contracts. Do you have a 'right' to carry a gun on your employer's property? Not if you agreed NOT to as a condition of employment! Same thing goes for your "freedom of speech", or worship, on that master's time. Pastors of State-created 501c(3) "faith-based organizations" will soon find out that THEIR creator will likewise prohibit certain undesirable verses from being preached in corporate pulpits. Acceptance of the contract confers jurisdiction.

The single principle of Scripture which must be understood in this regard is the concept of CHOICE. We are told to "choose this day Whom you will serve" -- over and over again -- for a very good reason.

I have read the arguments about corporation status of our nation and the thought process that now people who are in the USA are supposedly citizens of the District of Columbia and not really of the states etc. etc. along with other positions on this. But even if this is technically correct, which some show strong reasons as to why it is not, but ...

...it would have to be restored through the means it was lost.
Click to expand...

It was traded away, voluntarily. As the story of Yahushua and the Gibeonites makes clear, He holds us to our word - even when the contract was made under false pretenses. Because He has given us warning! Most "Amerikans" have traded what were once called "God-given Rights" for a few "civil liberties" and a "social safety net". Even a "deal with the devil" can be binding.

But even that is only PART of the story. (And I've done over 40 hours of audio teachings on the rest; precedent and presumption, the so-called 'time bombs' in the Constitution, the excuse of "emergency" and the "law of necessity", and many other excuses constitute others: http://www.waytozion.org/conspireality/misc.htm has one complete set of the regular Shabbat teachings under my name.)

What I struggle with is those who want to claim they are out of the SYSTEM or they want to be out of the System. If this is such a strong desire then why not join another country?
Click to expand...

Pick one.* I'm all ears.

(The coming destruction of the undeniably un-Constitutional fiat 'dollar' -- a "dishonest weight and measure" if there ever was one, and therefore something His Word repeatedly calls an "abomination" -- will bring down the so-called "reserve currency of the world", and with it most of the crooked system built on that unrighteous 'foundation'. I think a good case can be made to call what will follow "plagues", which those who have not sufficiently "come out of" will find, well, worthy of being called 'curses'. I contend that the parameters of the system which will replace it are readily discerned, and consistent with plenty of Scriptural warnings.)

It seems to me we either work with the system we have or leave the domain...
Click to expand...

As for me and my house, we will serve YHVH Elohenu. And how we are to "come out of her" (Rev. 18:4, which is fact the title of my blog, series of teachings, and weekly radio show) is not a single act...it is a "narrow path" for which we must rely on His guidance.

At least this is how I see it for now...
Click to expand...

As did I. It is indeed a difficult thing to realize that we have "inherited lies". I would suggest that Jeremiah 16:19 be part of one's devotion tomorrow. ;)

Blessings,

Mark


--------------------------------
* I have no doubt we both know the history. There IS no "beacon of freedom" today in the form of a land like this one ONCE was...either open, undeveloped, and free, or even one which holds certain "Truths to be self-evident..."

Where do today's persecuted "Jews" go now to escape the next modern 'Hitler'?

I submit that the only refuge is in Him...and that it starts with obedience.
 
Well, not to belabor the point since this topic is about marriage license.

But, this debate has been exactly carried forth in the past by the Puritans and the Pilgrims. The separatist Pilgrims argued all the time come out and be separate. This group has come forth today in the modern form of Fundamentalism which carries the tune of spatial separation from anything they see to be corrupt.

The Puritans held to reform of the existing entities and/or establishing new entities within the same spheres of where they lived. This group has come forth today in the modern form of Evangelicalism which carries the tune of being missional inside of the current systems, kind of like the Lord coming into the earth, a corrupt system, in order to insert truth into it by being light.

These two spirits still exist today as they represent two differing theologies. Oddly enough I came from where you used to be as a Fundamentalist with the idea of separation spatially to where I am at now, internal missional with a dose of wisdom like a serpent and being harmless like a dove in the process with those who are in the dark. I bought into the idea of escaping the corrupt system, the need to withdraw, the need to disassociate, etc. The problem, however, was that very few listened and my relationships with others failed time and time again, an inherent problem which is an underlying problem in a all Pilgrim/Fundamentalism philosophical grids and theologies as I see it.

I was initially trained by fundamentalists and schooled by them and their methods and ways. Not to say I lack thankfulness for many of their ideas and passions and even many of their positions. I am indeed thankful for them in many ways. What I have learned is that in God's kingdom there is a need for both groups. The "outsiders" (separatists) are like the referees in a ball game. They are always shouting fouls, penalties, do this don't do that rules at everyone on the field. The "insiders" (Engagers, Evangelicals) are in the game fighting and playing the game. Of course they too have their own things they scream. At times they are screaming, "just let us play," "stop disrupting the game," "that was an incorrect call," "are you blind ref, that was a great play not a foul," etc. etc. Just like with our government, a three branch system, with checks and balances, to which I am thankful for, in the field of theology play there is also some of these checks.

I'll pray for you as you try and find your island/country to go live upon and build :) But, in the meantime while you spend your energy there looking elsewhere and pointing out what you see as fouls over here, as for me, I'll keep trying to win as many people as I can to Christ in these lands as I prioritize first and foremost on the gospel (Matt. 28:19-20) while I also in that process argue for everyone's right to have liberty in these lands due to innate natural God-given rights that we can discover and see through the law of logic (John 1:1). Granted, I might indeed suffer in the process, but well, so did my Lord. He bled and died because he was so missional and so dedicated to engaging our culture, a culture that crucified him yet meant life for me and millions of others. I suppose he had the right to withdraw, leave, go back to heaven or even go build an entire new earth/land. But I'm ever so thankful and grateful he did not. Praise his name, for today I'm saved because he engaged us and suffered in the process to reach us. Likewise, it appears to me our Apostles did the same. They even had prison ministries because they believed in staying within a region and engaging the culture, even if it meant suffering for the cause of the gospel in the process. Maybe for those on the inside who keep fighting the good fight of faith we too might suffer, yet maybe our suffering will mean life for others (both eternal life as they receive the gospel and physical life in liberty), maybe even life and freedom for you should you never find that country to live upon.
 
George Washington was married without a marriage license.

The marriage license in America has a false righteous reputation based only on Godless inertia, but actually started out in a racist tone. Google marriage license along with miscegenation, intermarry and Blacks law dictionary (the most widely used law dictionary today according to wikipedea).

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.

Blacks Law Dictionary 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."

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.

This link from a same sex legal history approach is interesting..(not a moral/sin standpoint). If it is too long scroll down to the bold type headed "The role of marriage license clerks. http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html

The marriage license has nothing to do with scripture.
The marriage license is modern and historically not present or needed.
The marriage license in America has a racist foundation.
The marriage license was not an extra commandment carved in stone on the back of the Ten Commandments.
Poly minded people might still involve a license for one lady for insurance, etc. but can not defend it as in anyway as forcing God to determining the fact of a relationship. The marriage license is part of Satan's great marriage deception. A proper understanding gives second ladies "just living together" a whole new pure and moral freedom.
 
Well, not to belabor the point since this topic is about marriage license.
Click to expand...

Correct. The explanation was a repetition, in the form of background, as to why any such 'license' is (by both legal precedent and modern presumption) clear evidence (witness, even) of submission to 'another master'. It acknowledges jurisdiction. And YHVH makes that clear as well (Exodus 21:3-6, the section which IMMEDIATELY PRECEDES the verse 10 which most still accept, even some who otherwise deny that most of the 'rest' of the "Old" Torah still applies ;) ) -- including repeating the concept (two masters, Caesar, and MANY other references to servitude to Him alone) in the apostolic Scriptures.

But the principle is broad and general.

(And I've said for years that I won't get on my knees and beg for a license to defend my house with a firearm, either, since the Bill of Rights was clear in its Second Article. Likewise, I won't ask permission from "another master" to worship, or to speak "boldly, as I ought to speak", His Word...all of it - including those verses that are now, or will be shortly, termed "hate crimes" by the usurper government which has SOMEHOW 'done away with' that Supreme Law, too.)

Oddly enough I came from where you used to be as a Fundamentalist with the idea of separation...
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, I came from where you used to be as a legalistic Constitutionalist with the idea of Union at all costs...who for a long time also utterly rejected what I saw as the Scripturally inconsistent Evangelistic 'Church' I was trained in. (Man's false doctrine of Monogamy as an idol was but one of many there. Democracy seems to be a secular equivalent -- almost as religiously held, and equally absent from the Founding Documents.)

But, in the meantime while you spend your energy submitting to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and ignoring fouls you SHOULD otherwise see right here, I'll keep trying to win as many people as I can to Messiah Yahushua everywhere as I prioritize first and foremost on His Truth - every single yod and tiddle of it - while I also in that process argue for everyone's right to have liberty in these lands due to innate natural God-given rights that I first discovered through the law of logic (Yahuchanon 1:1, which is an incredible restatement of the "alef-tav" revealed in Bereshiet 1:1) -- but much MORE so in His 'teaching and instruction'.

You don't hear me talking about "running away" to anywhere, so I will try not to take offense at the implication, and the misreading. (You are not the first; perhaps the misread is from the English Scriptures that I quote; there is obviously more than one way to "come out" of something, to "be separate [kadosh]", and to "touch not the unclean thing"; etc.)

This earth, until His return, still belongs to the 'prince of this world' (Matt. 4:8-10) Where I will be physically (I pray) is where He directs me to be.

I'll pray for you as you try to find the real 'law' in a land which no longer even pretends to be either His, or a union of Republics. I have not only found that His Word is true, from "Bereshiet to maps" and what it means that those whom He has made free are "free indeed", wherever our physical body may be, but that such liberty is not FROM His eternal "teaching and instruction" (torah in the Hebrew), but comes as a result of being a bondservant to the Most High. Being "saved by grace" is merely to ENTER the walk via His "strait gate". We WALK the narrow way when we understand what Yahuchanon 14:15 means: If you love Me, keep My commands.

May you come to know the blessing of being an obedient servant.
 
I do not see why the state needs to be involved at all. I think really all the state needs to do is enforce contracts. After that everything else can be handled without the state being involved. No need to even register partnerships of any sort. Keep it a private issue.
 
Registration conveys ownership to the entity that you are registering with, and is completely different than "recording".

Any vehicle registered to the state is the property of the state, with equitable interest being the only claim by the party registering the item, as an example. Write up your contract and record, not register it, and the courts will have no power other than to apply the terms of your private contract between you and spouse.

Any marriage licensed or registered has legally formed with the secular state as the authoritative party, and the state has your children as well, even if you divorce.

You don't need to register for your contract to be binding.
 
In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State. When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State. Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926). The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183. This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family. The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life. Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity. Has the State intervened too early or perhaps intervened where no intervention was warranted? This question then directs our discussion to an analysis of the provision of the Act that allows the challenged State intervention (750 ILCS 5/607(b) (West 1996)).

[West v. West, 689 N.E.2d 1215 (1998)]

Think about it now. Don't license or register. Your contract will be binding and recognized ANYWAY.
 
I think I figured out what the truly appropriate use of a marriage license is...so I changed my avatar.

(sorry to those who read this at a much later date and don't get it...I changed my avatar to a slender woman's bottom in Blue Jeans with a Colorado Vehicle license plate (proportionately sized) just above her bottom that reads "MARRIAGE"...get it now? If not, and it is driving you crazy, send me a private message with your email address and I will email the image to you.)
 
Well personally,

I believe that a government should have no business in the personal relationship marriage. A license only serves as another way for the government to step and tax us for something it has no bearing with in the first place.
Liz
 
Sad but true to tax and control us. The gov takes control by making any thing you have be an option to be theirs. You marriage, your family, your children all the way to your freedom and in some cases your life. In the end it is all about control. It always has been and always will be. People who will stand up for their rights are really far, few and in between. To the point that untill the majority wants their freedom back this is how it will be! As far as marriage license goes you don't need one to make a commitment to your spouse, your self and God. The whole put it on paper thing at the court house also is is way over rated and dangerous because what ever the government gives it can also take away.

sweetthing26 said:
Well personally,

I believe that a government should have no business in the personal relationship marriage. A license only serves as another way for the government to step and tax us for something it has no bearing with in the first place.
Liz
Click to expand...
 
Scarecrow said:
To a young married couple it may be a symbol of their commitment to each other...

To a middle aged person it may become a restriction if their spouse becomes complacent...

Some believe that their religion does not support or allow divorce, yet at any time either party licensed to another can sue to have that license revoked.

Would it not be better to leave the definition of marriage up to an individual's chosen religion and participate in it according to the structure and regulations of marriage within that particular religion?

Would the State be better off and involved in less public outcry and legal strife if it simply registered unions between consenting adults?

Luke 2:1-5 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to be registered, each to his own town. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
Click to expand...
Why is it a license or permission?
Who grants it?
Who sedes such power to grantor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top