Civil marriage and private marriage

Since this is coming up a bunch more in the fear of marriage as the self fulfilling prophecy, let’s discuss it some more.

Cane wrote about this a while ago, which I agree with.

Christians should file civil marriage certificates for many reasons. For one thing it is the law and we are bound as Christians to be obedient to civil authorities unless it is against the commandments of God. There is nothing against marriage licenses in the Bible.

Second, it is the God-appointed duty of the civil government to punish evil and approve good, and when done lawfully marriage is a good; about as good as anything on Earth gets. When a marriage is unlawful–such as in a case of bigamy or incest–then the practitioners are duly punished. The churches don’t do that. We may want churches to do that and we may even think they should, but they don’t. They cannot verify to us that Susan and Bob aren’t close relations. They don’t know whether Bob is already married. They cannot even verify that Susan is who she says she is. Nor do they want to.

Some will be tempted to bring up in the comments some failures of civil government such as so-called “homosexual marriage”, or the institution of no-fault divorce. Those are failures, to be sure. The trouble for would-be defenders of the churches is that these points of failure are not points of success for churches. They don’t claim authority over these abominations either. A pastor or priest might mouth something against these sins, but they let them in the doors all the same; even though we are instructed.

The problem with those who ‘fear the government on marriage’ is that they’re basically falling into the same exact pattern of thought they hate with feminists about authority and Patriarchy. Just because ‘some’ men abused authority or Patriarchy means that authority is bad (when men have it) or Patriarchy is bad. Therefore, we should avoid these things completely.

This also means that if you want to ‘protect’ yourself in marriage you have the ability to do that too under the law. Prenups at least 3+ months before marriage, disclosing everything, a lawyer for you and her, video taped, and enough time to show that there is no duress will almost inevitably hold up in court. Usually pre-nups only get thrown out if it’s too close to the marriage or you both didn’t have lawyers or things like that. There are also other alternatives such as putting money into trusts earmarked specifically for certain things like any future kids.

I fail to see the point of going legalistic: we’re married but not actually ‘married’ by the state.

  1. As mentioned before, fear of marriage as the self fulfilling prophecy.
  2. As mentioned before, falling into the same thought patterns as feminists
  3. We are to be obedient to earthly authorities
  4. Concern of earthly over the spiritual: material possessions over oneness. This is like the Church of Laodicea trying to have one foot in the world vs the other in the Church.
  5. It will generally destroy some amount of trust and goodwill, which you obviously do not want to do.
  6. You’re basing your fearful conclusions about women specifically on the thoughts and actions of promiscuous women. This one of the huge issues with the ‘secular red pill’ that can lead many Christians astray as it makes you jaded and bitter when it’s only a specific population of women that does this.
  7. There are legal benefits of marriage and especially name change that make things much easier in terms of taxes, healthcare, insurance, and things like these.

All in all, I don’t really see any benefits of private marriage, and I think that it’s unnecessary fear mongering (See: 1 John 4).

One of the new stats that I’ve seen is that men and women who are focused on evangelism and disciple making in the Church have divorces rates <2%. Those who are actually focused on Jesus’ mission for us aren’t going to be divorcing at any appreciable rates. The reason why the divorce rates in the Church are as high as they are is because the majority of those in Churches are family Christians, cultural Christians, Sunday-only Christians or social Christians. I keep saying this but there’s probably only about 5-10% of people in most Churches who have Jesus at the center of their lives. If you marry a family, cultural, Sunday-only, or social Christian then yeah they’re probably going to possibly opt to blow up marriages if they’re unhappy like the world does. Other corroborating anecdotes [one] and [two] about the 5-15%ish range.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Civil marriage and private marriage

  1. Lexet Blog says:

    There’s an assumption that getting a marriage certificate is mandatory. That is not true.

  2. seventiesjason says:

    Leonard Ravenhill was saying this back in the 1950’s until he died in the early 1990’s about maybe of all the Christians, maybe less than 10% will indeed see Him and hear “well done faithful servant” when they breathe their last.

    But what does he know? He was an unknown pastor, didn’t have a meg-church, didn’t cause a revival that changed the course of history or put a pause on the culture and times (and let me tell you, no Christian alive today has ever witnessed an actual one). The last one probably was with William Booth……

    I mentioned on another blog, and after being quietly ignored in a new church in my new town that I moved to after stating “You all are against femimism. Yet, you cannot even argue or convince a pastor, deacons, elders, and other men to implement and expect changes….but you all know what’s best for the world, marriage, the society at large and for me.”

    Private v Civil Marriage is a moot point when divorce, remarriage, cohabiting, zero social stigma (unless you can’t find a wife), single motherhood is openly celebrated, tolerated and allowed……and when most of the dirt falls (when the next census come out especially) that more people will just not be able to marry even if they want to………

  3. @ Lexet Blog

    That’s not an argument for not getting one though.

  4. @ seventiesjason

    Private v Civil Marriage is a moot point when divorce, remarriage, cohabiting, zero social stigma (unless you can’t find a wife), single motherhood is openly celebrated, tolerated and allowed……and when most of the dirt falls (when the next census come out especially) that more people will just not be able to marry even if they want to………

    Of course. This is simply a talking point for those who are familiar with our sphere of influence.

    A hard line stance against divorce, remarriage, cohabiting, sex outside of marriage, and things like these would be what the Church SHOULD be doing. Judge those within and cast them out if they keep living in sin such as Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 5.

    How many Churches are actually casting out anyone though… pretty much none.

  5. Lexet Blog says:

    It’s not required, and marriage is a divine institution, not a state institution.

    The argument for not getting one is that the certificate only allows a temporary benefit (taxes), with massive, statistically probable risks.

    The insurance market will insure vocal chords, but not a marriage. Market economics should tell us something.

  6. @ Lexet Blog

    The argument for not getting one is that the certificate only allows a temporary benefit (taxes), with massive, statistically probable risks.

    I went over several practical and Biblical arguments in the OP of which taxes is one small part.

  7. white says:

    I have to agree with Lexet here in that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that a registered/civil marriage is mandatory for marriage. You replied that it is not an argument, which is a weird response because Lexet’s point is precisely that the burden of proof should be on you to prove a registered/civil marriage is mandatory.

    You did not make any argument to support that claim. (yet)

    Cane did, his arguments being 1) “For one thing it is the law and we are bound as Christians to be obedient to civil authorities unless it is against the commandments of God.” and 2) “Second, it is the God-appointed duty of the civil government to punish evil and approve good, and when done lawfully marriage is a good” The response to him, is that the main position of the “anti-marriage-ish” group within the Christian manosphere is as follows (to the best of my knowledge): that we do agree with the above 2 points, but that in no way change the fact that modern marriage has been morphed into something else entirely, something that can/should no longer be considered marriage. Rather it has become a tool of exploitation and destabilization with the words “MARRIAGE” slapped onto it.

    A good example would be, civil governments having authority to rule the church. But should a modern, secular government try to control the day-to-day activities of the church, or outright usurp the authority of the church leaders, the resulting church (corpse) can longer be called “CHURCH”. Similarly, the Catholic Church is the original, true church with authority from God. But that did not stop Protestants from leaving it due to perceived flaws. Since I assume you’re Protestant, I thought this last analogy is perfect

  8. I neither agree nor disagree because the assumption set is incorrect. That’s what trips everyone up on this topic. My points on this haven’t changed in a number of years, but my understanding of why we’re here has. That matters, but, first, the problems.

    “Christians should file civil marriage certificates for many reasons. For one thing it is the law and we are bound as Christians to be obedient to civil authorities unless it is against the commandments of God. There is nothing against marriage licenses in the Bible.”

    1) It, now, isn’t the Law. However, the Law will eventually want in on the deal. Human Government ends up evil in that way. The Reality of a need for some legal framework is different than a requirement to get a Marriage License. The premise is false, but the standard counter response is generally foolish.

    2) The modern marriage license is next to nothing like taxes. It’s far more related to blood sacrifices to demons. The de facto nature of the American (and a few other countries) marriage license is an explicit rejection of Headship in Christian Marriage and enslaves the Husband to the Wife. This reality is the crux of the discussion and the point almost no one wants to admit.

    No one wants to admit it because it means they’re going to need to reject a lot of things, and, for most that will come to understand the issue, it actually means they’re quite trapped in the situation, with no means of extracting from it. Wisdom costs your illusions about the world; it’s a price too high for nearly everyone to pay.

    The problem I’ve encountered in discussion, from this point, is either guys not getting the fairly easy point or simply throwing their hands up at a loss for dealing with the situation. So, I’m going to deal with the practical issues.

    1) The issue isn’t the threat of divorce. (Women have just “up and left” for all of human history.) The issue is rather than fleeing from temptation, the de facto state of the Marriage License is more akin to building temptation a nice wing in your house and keeping it well fed. Admitting that every Woman will have a natural temptation to “trade up” their current Man begins the process of dealing with the issue.

    Since almost everyone dances around the issue that it’s a natural temptation, they simply cannot take ownership of how things need to be approached. At best, the generally idea that’s used by most is to openly deny this reality, then set about a two-mode plan to keep Women from pulling the trigger. The first involves keeping the idea away from them, and the second involves negotiating with a terrorist. It’s Fingers-in-the-Ears and Carrot at all stages.

    2) The actual biggest hurdle before addressing the core problems is the Pastor issue. The harsh reality is that they stand in front of a group of people, at generally a joyous event, preside over the ceremony, then, a few minutes after the ceremony, put their signature on a slavery contract for their fellow Christian. The few that actually come to understand this reality will be re-enacting chunks of the Old Testament that including ripping their clothes as a sign of failure.

    This isn’t to say that most of them set out to live their lives that way, and a Pastor that’s been active since the 1960s would have performed marriages in a time before it was true. But the reality is that the situation was changed. The “Church” was played again, like it has been for the last couple of hundred years.

    3) The other harsh reality is that the Law will always want a say. This gives a Christian Husband a limited number of options: Leave, Try to Dodge, Use an Alternate Structure or Adopt a Mitigation strategy.

    If you’re the child of 1st Generation Immigrants, I’m actually just going to say it. You really should make plans to leave. It’s going to be rough, but you’ll also be committing your sons to the American Civil War 2.0. (That’s baked in the cake; timing is the only question.) Never said these were easy answers.

    Trying to Dodge the Law is going to be a problem if you have any significant assets. This is generally an inadvisable position anyway.

    Alternative Structures exist because of what happened with the normalization of homosexuality. Everything, legally, we view as the Contract side of a Marriage License is available. You’ll need legal help in your area, but the cost isn’t going to be any different than a Mitigation strategy. The real benefit of this strategy is full legal control of your children, as that’s the actual leverage point most Women will cling to in their exit strategy.

    If an Alternative Structure isn’t available, then one has to adopt a significant mitigation strategy. (Or if a Christian is already married.) The children will still be a lost leverage point against you, but the rest of the finances can be dealt with. This will take some legal counsel in your area, but it’s going to revolve around Trusts and the occasional Business. If in a pre-married state, see DS’ points about Pre-Nups. You cannot protect the children with them, but you can protect your assets enough to add significant pain to the temptation when crawls up on a Wife.

    4) I’ve used the analogy before that the current Marriage License is akin to giving a Woman a gun, having her point it at your head, then telling her to never think about pulling the trigger. Then hoping that works for the rest of your life. The point of all of the Mitigation approaches is to simply put the gun in a case, stored in the house. Any spouse can always just walk out of a marriage, but humans are surprisingly predictable when you put significant hurdle to take an action. They have to actually commit to it. Women have trouble committing to actions that are that consequential unless it’s ridiculously easy. Hence the approaches I’m advising.

    Pre-“Divorce Reform”, the divorce rate was somewhere around 12%, which includes the set of post-WW2 “quickie” marriages that ended in divorce. The historic rate was closer to 10%. We know from Muslim countries, with Male-Only divorce initiation, that the divorce rate varies from 8-12%. In Western countries, it’s a functional 50% rate. As a result, the mitigation strategy starts from before you even meet a Christian Woman. The point of these discussions is to lay out the problem and provide a structural method for having proper insurance. Because, if you won’t even address the issues that come with this reality, how would one expect you to stand up against your own temptations?

  9. @ white

    I can see my arguments are not being considered so this is at an impasse.

    A good example would be, civil governments having authority to rule the church. But should a modern, secular government try to control the day-to-day activities of the church, or outright usurp the authority of the church leaders, the resulting church (corpse) can longer be called “CHURCH”. Similarly, the Catholic Church is the original, true church with authority from God. But that did not stop Protestants from leaving it due to perceived flaws. Since I assume you’re Protestant, I thought this last analogy is perfect

    Which is why I have been strongly considering converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

  10. @ Looking Glass

    I generally agree.

    The biggest thing that helps keep marriages together, aside from a husband and wife’s commitment/vows to God is community. The pastor/Church have a big role to play in this as well as friends and family (as statistics show that divorce rate increases if you have friends or family who have divorce). Negative influence is negative influence.

    I do not believe that “alternative structures” exert any significant influence in keeping a wife from divorcing or not. If a wife (or husband for that matter) is going to leave, they’re going to leave regardless of ‘cash and prizes.’ Of course, cash and prizes are an incentive to leave, but that can easily be mitigated based on a mutual assured destruction or scorched earth policy. I would spend all of the money I had to fight for my kids. Yeah, it would suck but at the end of the day it’s material possessions. It eliminates any incentive for cash and prizes or custody.

  11. @DS:

    I’m not one to accept a negative position from the start, and the current legal situation is, as I said, a de facto slavery position for the Husband. Dealing with the Reality of the situation vs the words on some paper that are mostly ignored is a big hurdle for most of this discussion.

    The mindset needed when approaching this is Christians living within an incredibly hostile regime. It’s Eastern Europe under Communism with better food & travel options. Once established within a proper framework, the issues can be addressed directly given the specific circumstances one finds themselves within. Western Christians need to understand they live within societies that have been inverted from within over the course of more than a century, as a way so they can be made to do much evil without even realizing it.

    Now, there is more than one reason for the Alternative Structure. The first starts with the reality, that always seems skipped over in these discussions, that Marriage isn’t an Event. It’s a Process. Minus a lot of alcohol in Las Vegas, it’s very rare one finds themselves unmarried one day and married the next. Thus, the Process establishes the framework upon which the Marriage will be operated. That’s the first layer. If a Christian Woman isn’t willing to do the barest amount of effort to support her future Husband, then, given the nature of the current environment, you’ve just saved yourself a lot of problems.

    The technical aspects only matter if a wife files for divorce; the established framing for the relationship will do most of the work for you. Once established and enforced, the framing will simply carry through the marriage, but it leaves a little tripwire in her mind, for the occasion when the thought crops up.

    While the technical approach came first, as the current Marriage License system is poisoned beyond repair, work in other areas has lead me to understand the need for layering defenses against deeply critical points of failure. When it comes to humans and terrible ideas, they are normally pretty sticky unless their is pain associated with them. This is how something that is tempting can float in your mind for a significant amount of time, and why normally removing yourself from the situation that can allow that temptation to fester is normally what is needed. Marriage presents unique challenges to this, so Wisdom is needed for layering an approach.

    The first layer is always keeping the idea/temptation utterly away. Useful approach to porn, far less effective for something like this. It’ll always be diffuse among these societies, so the only direct approach available is limitation of content within the family and removal of outer network of those either being divorced or a divorced Woman.

    The second layer is Active Culling. This is a part of just how one should operate in general, but, if you’re living a faithful life, you’re also going to end up with people as part of your outer network that will try to destroy you. Family members is always the hard one, but it’s not like Jesus didn’t tell us, rather directly, that faith will cause opposition within your own family. You will need to establish & defend the boundaries you find acceptable. The same thing applies to parenting and how you prevent evil influences in your children, so you need to start before the marriage does.

    The third layer is where the Mitigation Strategies are so important. Big decisions like a divorce don’t just happen, much like my point about marriage being a process. It’s little different than what someone in Sales is doing, but it is happening within the Woman’s own mind. Pre-mitigating the potential damage shifts the discussion points within a Woman’s mind and adds significantly more doubt. Rationality doesn’t matter here; it’s the Fear Response that’s important. The point of the “No Fault Divorce” isn’t the divorce part; it’s the “No Fault” part. By the mass-scale industrial propaganda for divorce, the idea floats around that it’s “easy” and she will “get what she deserves”. Pre-laid mitigation strategies makes the leap harder while leaving very explicit doubt in her mind, which is normally going to require someone in her ear to overcome. (See Layer 2, Active Culling, for how to prevent that.)

    This is also where the Alternative Structure plays its best card. Divorce Ideation is a Process, thus the AS leaves a tripwire in there. To the World, you aren’t really married; to God & the Church, you are. She’ll never mention that until you know thoughts of Divorce are in her mindspace. People want to talk about what is on their mind, but Women react in accordance with what is in their mindspace. I feel like this is a classic application of “Women tell you what they’re thinking about indirectly”, but it’s quite useful, in this regard. Much like those odd requests left in riders for professional musicians, the existence of the AS will cause it to be the first major issue to be undermined by a wife that has divorce in her mindspace.

    The fourth layer is Hard Power. This is the trap that most Christian Husbands find themselves in. They’ve actually been sold up the river and it is only at this stage that they find that out. The legal system is completely against them, as a default, so they’re simply bargaining in the shadow of the Law. This is when all of the Mitigation Strategies come into play. There’s really 3 leverage points: Current Assets, Future Productivity and Children.

    I came across a study that said a divorce costs a Man 65% of his assets, on average. So that’s a safe assumption of what you’re writing off by taking a wife. Mitigation strategies can limit that, but the main place they’ll show up is Future Productivity. This will also depend on jurisdiction, so there’s no way to predict the effect. However, it will dictate the strategy you take at the beginning, whether heavier into Trusts, personal “Business” and whatever would show up in a pre-nup.

    Because they have to hide the fact the entire Family Court situation is blatantly Unconstitutional, they’ve been chipping away at the first two leverage points to avoid losing the “No Fault” part. However, what that means is most of the leverage is attached to the Children. This cannot be dealt with via a Pre-Nup, but that’s why I favor the Alternative Structure for Americans. (Your situation will always be dictated by jurisdiction.) What would happen is, after the children are born, you take sole legal custody with your wife having medical signing rights. The only thing functionally different between being Married and that legal state is in the event of a separation, the children are your sole legal dependents. This is the only way that I, currently, know how to remove children as a leverage point against a Christian Husband.

    The Alternative Structure, if implemented, does add trip wires around the Children, because there’s only ever an issue if the wife is having issues. However, once in the Hard Power position with regard to the Children, it’s extremely unlikely a wife will walk. Can always happen, but, if you got that far, I’d expect her to die before leaving, just by playing the percentages.

    Is there some upkeep work with whatever strategy? Sure. But it’s the same with a budget. Once you’re into a groove, it’s fairly easy to maintain the straight & narrow.

  12. white says:

    @Deep

    With respect, you did not present any arguments that the Bible demands civil marriage as mandatory for a Christian couple looking to be married.

    “1. As mentioned before, fear of marriage as the self fulfilling prophecy.”
    “2. As mentioned before, falling into the same thought patterns as feminists”

    These aren’t arguments for civil marriage being mandatory, these are criticisms of the attitudes commonly found in people who disagree with civil marriage. Many who disagree with civil marriages can agree with you on the above 2 points (me included), because they aren’t arguments that disprove our position.

    “3. We are to be obedient to earthly authorities”

    This IS an argument, except it is the same one brought up by Cane. As I responded, that does not change the fact that authorities can, and have, perverted and destroyed many institutions (church, state, marriage, etc.) and when that happens, it reaches a point when we can no longer pretend it is still the same institution, like Protestants collectively realized in the 16th century. An entire new conversation can be had just from this point alone.

    “4. Concern of earthly over the spiritual: material possessions over oneness. This is like the Church of Laodicea trying to have one foot in the world vs the other in the Church.”

    This is borderline ad hominem: you’re unfairly assuming that men are against civil marriage due to material concerns. It’ll be akin to suggesting that Protestants started the Reformation because they are concerned with material possessions and doesn’t want to pay indulgences. Surely you can’t be that callous towards the position of men?

    “5. It will generally destroy some amount of trust and goodwill, which you obviously do not want to do.”
    “7. There are legal benefits of marriage and especially name change that make things much easier in terms of taxes, healthcare, insurance, and things like these.”

    Again, these are not arguments for marriage being mandatory. Point 7) are advantages of civil marriage while point 5) is a disadvantage for not getting a civil marriage.

    “6. You’re basing your fearful conclusions about women specifically on the thoughts and actions of promiscuous women. This one of the huge issues with the ‘secular red pill’ that can lead many Christians astray as it makes you jaded and bitter when it’s only a specific population of women that does this.”

    This is borderline blue pill (NAWALT?) but, again, this is also not an argument for civil marriages being mandatory for a Christian couple looking to be married.

    You then listed some numbers about the divorce rate in modern Christian communities, which is cool to know and all that but… again, not an argument etc.

    Oddly, you seem to realize that the state is not necessary in the process of marriage in the eyes of God. Quote: “we’re married but not actually ‘married’ by the state.”

    All that said though, if you are to become Catholic/Orthodox, then you have all the justification you need to demand Christian couples be legally married: both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, if I remember correctly, demand couples be civilly married before the Sacrament. But of course we both realize this is not a persuasive argument for Sola Scriptura Protestants.

  13. Cane Caldo says:

    Thanks for the link-backs.

    The handwringing and scheming are useless. Some people have a hard time understanding that it is the decisions of the rulers–and not the rules–which rule in the adjudication of a divorce. Lack of a marriage license is no protection for a man from a woman who claims to be his wife and wants to divorce him. If a man goes into court and says, “But your honor, we never signed a marriage license!” he will find out real fast that the judge doesn’t care. The judge will dig into their history, make his own decision about whether or not they lived as man and wife, and then make a ruling based on his own notions; applying the law as he sees fit.

    It is noteworthy that some people want chaos; they want it to be difficult for their authorities to know whether a marriage exists.

  14. @ white

    With respect, you did not present any arguments that the Bible demands civil marriage as mandatory for a Christian couple looking to be married.

    No, I made a case why you should.

    Mandatory is you all putting words in my mouth.

    This is borderline ad hominem: you’re unfairly assuming that men are against civil marriage due to material concerns. It’ll be akin to suggesting that Protestants started the Reformation because they are concerned with material possessions and doesn’t want to pay indulgences. Surely you can’t be that callous towards the position of men?

    The vast majority of men who hold this view have this concern, which means it’s a valid point.

    This is borderline blue pill (NAWALT?) but, again, this is also not an argument for civil marriages being mandatory for a Christian couple looking to be married.

    This is a weird definition of blue pill that you have.

    Red pill is simply the truth. It’s true that virgins have a significantly lower divorce risk than the rest of the population. Therefore, it is also true that all the ways promiscuous women act should not be confused with the way virgin women act.

    There are universal facts of male and female human nature such as the fact that both men and women are tempted in different ways. However, behavior of certain populations should not be misconstrued as fact for other populations.

    My other arguments for still stand I believe.

  15. @ Cane

    The handwringing and scheming are useless. Some people have a hard time understanding that it is the decisions of the rulers–and not the rules–which rule in the adjudication of a divorce. Lack of a marriage license is no protection for a man from a woman who claims to be his wife and wants to divorce him. If a man goes into court and says, “But your honor, we never signed a marriage license!” he will find out real fast that the judge doesn’t care. The judge will dig into their history, make his own decision about whether or not they lived as man and wife, and then make a ruling based on his own notions; applying the law as he sees fit.

    Correct and good point.

    What really gets me at the end of the day is that the “defensive attitude” really does (or will) slowly or quickly sabotage their own headship in marriage to the various factors I listed in the OP.

    If we were to put it in game terms it would be the man who is getting butt hurt when poked fun of by a woman versus a man who pokes fun back at her. Butthurt defensiveness is one of the fastest ways to kill any burgeoning relationship.

  16. MountainGoat says:

    Civil license or not is a bit of a false dilemma, If we were to actually understand and then apply the Biblical definition of marriage the argument becomes a mute point.

  17. ballista74 says:

    Christians should file civil marriage certificates for many reasons. For one thing it is the law and we are bound as Christians to be obedient to civil authorities unless it is against the commandments of God. There is nothing against marriage licenses in the Bible.

    I demonstrated this to be false on my blog in numerous ways (ever wrong is Cane Caldo):
    1. God never meant the civil authorities to have any claim on marriage, but left that power exclusively to Himself. Witness Matthew 19:4-6: “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. This Scripture has not been countermanded in any way. Marriage has been left to the province of God alone.

    2. A proper understanding of civil marriage licenses (let’s use the proper legal term) reveals that the State has usurped this power from God. The legal definition of “license” according to Black’s Law is: A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort. . . To read this accurately, the State has outlawed marriage, and then allowed itself permission via “license” to approve the marriages of individuals. So, instead of God joining together man and woman, we have the State joining together man and woman, as well as defining fully the terms of marriage (family courts, VAWA, no-fault divorce, child support, alimony, and so forth). State control of marriage effectively denies Matthew 19:4-6. What God has joined together, man puts asunder habitually, even Christian men, all to rousing cheering applause with the thought that God approves of all of it.

    The State has effectively AMOGed men out of their marriages and have taken control of families. This was never part of God’s plan.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s