Youth that feel we don't need marriage certificates in Marriage?

[EasterJoy]

Continued

1. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority.

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

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

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

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

A Catholic does not need parental permission to marry. A Catholic who is old enough to marry freely gives his or her own consent, without outside coercion and without needing outside permission (excepting when ecclesiastical permission is required for a mixed marriage, a marriage celebrated in secret, et cetera).

1. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist.

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

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

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

Read more at mercyseat.net/marriagelicense.html

**No, the State of Ohio recognizes the contract between the husband and wife, just as the Church recognizes the exchange of consent between the husband and wife.

If you are a citizen of a civil state and enjoy the benefits of citizenry in that state, then you are also bound by the authority of that state.**

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’m guessing Gordon Ramsey is some kind of TV chef who is a caricature of a tough guy.

I’m sure you husband is a stud.

No, he’s a pretty mild mannered Scottish man.

Most successful chefs in the world are men. Some big, hairy and loud, others small and unassuming. But cooking does not make a man less manly. That’s absurd. I don’t become more masculine when I get a flat and change the tire on the side of the street. At least I don’t think so. My voice hasn’t dropped and I haven’t gotten any harrier…

 

[TheSeeker2014]

1. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority.

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

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

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

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

A Catholic does not need parental permission to marry. A Catholic who is old enough to marry freely gives his or her own consent, without outside coercion and without needing outside permission (excepting when ecclesiastical permission is required for a mixed marriage, a marriage celebrated in secret, et cetera).

To Honor your mother and father it is good to ask for their blessing on your union despite age. That is what it is referring too. Sure it is not REQUIRED unless of course you view it through the ten commandments of honoring parents. Whether Catholic or not, it would be wise to ask for blessings. However, I do see your points that you have made. Well done I thought it was an interesting view and wished to hear rebuttal on his ideal.

EDIT
Additional qu
ecclesiastical permission is required for a mixed marriage?
I am somewhat ignorant of catholic ways.

 

[EasterJoy]

Let us ask ourselves how a valid Catholic marriage without benefit of a civil marriage would be seen in these common law marriage and putative marriage states:

In the District of Columbia, a common-law marriage exists if the two persons are legally free to marry, if it is the intent of the two persons to establish a marriage, and if the two are known to the community as husband and wife.

In Kansas, a common law marriage exists if the parties are over 18, have the capacity to marry, have a present marriage agreement; and each other out as husband and wife to the public.

Montana, likewise, requires capacity to marry legally, mutual consent, cohabitation, and reputing each other to be husband and wife in public.

In Rhode Island, there is a common law marriage if the parties seriously intended to enter into the husband-wife relationship and the parties’ conduct is of such a character as to lead to a belief in the community that they were married.

A common law marriage exists in South Carolina when two parties have a present intent (usually, but not necessarily, evidenced by a public and unequivocal declaration) to enter into a marriage contract; and “a mutual agreement between the parties to assume toward each other the relation of husband and wife.”

**We also have to ask ourselves if there is not a question of integrity and perhaps even scandal with regards to presenting yourself as married and yet not being legally married because you have openly declared that you have avoided civil marriage in order to deny your spouse the rights your state gives to a spouse in the event of a marital break-up.

Ask yourself about that. Is that unconditional consent?**

 

[WilT]

Even though I may not be married I believe in the covenant of marriage…and a license to go along with at. As a Catholic married couple one declares not only that God brings them together and that no man should pull them apart. Also one needs the security that both married are in it for the long hall, which they really shouldn’t need to but unfortunately times have changed.

 

[EasterJoy]

To Honor your mother and father it is good to ask for their blessing on your union despite age. That is what it is referring too. Sure it is not REQUIRED unless of course you view it through the ten commandments of honoring parents. Whether Catholic or not, it would be wise to ask for blessings. However, I do see your points that you have made. Well done I thought it was an interesting view and wished to hear rebuttal on his ideal.

EDIT
Additional qu
ecclesiastical permission is required for a mixed marriage?
I am somewhat ignorant of catholic ways.

You live in a state that forbids you from considering your parents’ feelings before you marry if you want to? I doubt that. You are implying that parents have a right to forbid the Christian marriage of their son or daughter. They do not, and as far as I know, they never have.

A Catholic has the right to marry another Catholic, provided both are free to marry and capable of marriage. Because of the danger of defection, however, a Catholic who wishes to marry a non-Catholic must obtain ecclesiastical permission. It is the duty of the bishop to preserve the faith among the faithful, and by that duty the bishop may disallow a marriage between a Catholic and someone outside the faith who poses a threat to the faith of the Catholic and the Catholic’s children.

 

[PHILTHEO]

Originally Posted by PHILTHEO View Post

BueEyedLady, you are right on some but wrong on others

“-Uhhhh…no. The Marvin case only holds for California, and like the rest of family law, palimony is a patchwork of laws between states. In New Jersey, for example, the State Supreme Court ruled that a couple doesn’t even have to be living together for one to sue the other for partner support, that a promise of support was enough for a suit.”

There has to be a promise. Also, though it has been a while since I studied it I’m almost certain it falls under the statute of frauds. i.e., it must be in writing That was my point. As I said in my first post you must promise to support each other (and you use contracts to do it) and that is why you DON’T need legal marriage since you can make substitutes.

“- I’m talking about the stuff in the house. And yes, you can take your ex to civil court for that. And, as my older brother found out the hard way, if your partner has consistently helped pay your house payment, that will be considered when dividing up the property that was acquired.”

I didn’t mention mortgages. Although it is notoriously hard to even get the just reimbursement or ownership even if you paid. My assumption is your older brother put her name on some document, however she also could prove the financial impact with good documentation. Once again I wasn’t talking about this. Items that she bought (furniture/contents of home/part of home she paid payments for) of course she owns. They are her purchases.

You also made the claim there was joint property earlier. There is not unless you opt into it. In marriage it is default. I pay 100% of mortgage but wife paid 50% by default and owns half the house (and yes, I know there are exceptions but I speak to make it simple for now). In your brothers case the woman was paying so there was a legitimate % she owned.

“-You’re very misinformed on divorce and domestic abuse laws and procedures. However, even if you weren’t (and you are), why would you want to sentimentally marry someone that you didn’t trust with your material goods? How could that marriage even be valid when that kind of lack of trust and unwillingness to be completely open with every aspect of your life is so apparent?”

So I’m misinformed but you didn’t actually disagree with a single statement I gave? What you did is called putting up strawmen. You modified my original arguments and took down the weak versions. If you did disagree, please clarify. But rest assured based on my career (hint, very much financially and consulting oriented!) I literally make it my business to be very well informed.

And my point is not that I don’t trust my Future wife, my point is that the law should be fair. ALL law should be fair. If she can do it I should be able to. One sided laws encourage bad behavior.

 

[Prov31HelpMeet]

I’m seeing a lot of people on these boards who have never cohabited. Let me break this down for you:

Not having a marriage certificate means that you are at a serious legal and financial risk should any number of about 10,000 things happen to you.

Cohabiting couples are still subject to domestic violence laws, can still take each other to court for half of the communal property (anything acquired while living together), and if one partner is out of the workforce and financially dependent on the other, alimony can still be awarded (colloquially ‘palimony’). And of course, child custody and support laws are the same whether the couple was married or not.

So…not being married leaves you vulnerable to a bunch of different bad things, and still leaves you with all of the legal responsibilities that a marriage does.

Z
I try my best to submit to my husband. I sometimes fail. But that’s what the Bible tells me to do. Under the current system, that kind of arrangement is effectively illegal, no matter how happy I am. This is why folks like us are now trying to flee civil marriage–ironically setting up civil unions the way gay couples were doing a few years ago. So much for tolerating others beliefs. I will pray for you and hope you are convicted of Gods way for marriage.

 

[EasterJoy]

Ahh yes, the house husband.

courtshippledge.com/2013/10/does-doing-laundry-get-married-men-more-sex/

Too good to wash someone’s feet, are we?

A husband has to be willing to be to his wife as Christ is to the Church (Ephesians 5). Let us examine what the four Gospels had to say about Christ’s idea of leadership and primacy:

But Jesus summoned them and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many."** Matt. 20:25-28**

Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.” ** Luke 22:24-27**

Jesus summoned them and said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:42-45

*So when he had washed their feet (and) put his garments back on and reclined at table again, he said to them, "Do you realize what I have done for you? You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do. Amen, amen, I say to you, no slave is greater than his master nor any messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you understand this, blessed are you if you do it. * John 13:12-17

 

[EasterJoy]

People should all just live alone and just meet up for the occasional hook up to avoid all that risk.

A more selfish and self-centered attitude, an attitude that is more the antithesis of all preached and lived by our Lord and Savior, could hardly be articulated. To say that it is scandalous to hear such an idea flippantly tossed out by a Christian who believes in “sacramental marriage” is a gross understatement.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

You live in a state that forbids you from considering your parents’ feelings before you marry if you want to? I doubt that. You are implying that parents have a right to forbid the Christian marriage of their son or daughter. They do not, and as far as I know, they never have…

No, biblical it would be right to ask for parents’ blessings. They were saying that right is taken away from the parent since the state does not allow for parents’ opinion on the matter (if they say no). In Jewish tradition and history (and old testament), blessing from the parents were essential to have a fruitful (whatever) example here would be marriage. Honoring parents. This more of an individuals job rather than the states duty, but it is what he was believing to be true. I only posted his words not because I agreed with him but I wanted to hear others opinions on the matter too.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Originally Posted by PHILTHEO View Post

BueEyedLady, you are right on some but wrong on others

“-Uhhhh…no. The Marvin case only holds for California, and like the rest of family law, palimony is a patchwork of laws between states. In New Jersey, for example, the State Supreme Court ruled that a couple doesn’t even have to be living together for one to sue the other for partner support, that a promise of support was enough for a suit.”

There has to be a promise. Also, though it has been a while since I studied it I’m almost certain it falls under the statute of frauds. i.e., it must be in writing That was my point. As I said in my first post you must promise to support each other (and you use contracts to do it) and that is why you DON’T need legal marriage since you can make substitutes.

“- I’m talking about the stuff in the house. And yes, you can take your ex to civil court for that. And, as my older brother found out the hard way, if your partner has consistently helped pay your house payment, that will be considered when dividing up the property that was acquired.”

I didn’t mention mortgages. Although it is notoriously hard to even get the just reimbursement or ownership even if you paid. My assumption is your older brother put her name on some document, however she also could prove the financial impact with good documentation. Once again I wasn’t talking about this. Items that she bought (furniture/contents of home/part of home she paid payments for) of course she owns. They are her purchases.

You also made the claim there was joint property earlier. There is not unless you opt into it. In marriage it is default. I pay 100% of mortgage but wife paid 50% by default and owns half the house (and yes, I know there are exceptions but I speak to make it simple for now). In your brothers case the woman was paying so there was a legitimate % she owned.

“-You’re very misinformed on divorce and domestic abuse laws and procedures. However, even if you weren’t (and you are), why would you want to sentimentally marry someone that you didn’t trust with your material goods? How could that marriage even be valid when that kind of lack of trust and unwillingness to be completely open with every aspect of your life is so apparent?”

So I’m misinformed but you didn’t actually disagree with a single statement I gave? What you did is called putting up strawmen. You modified my original arguments and took down the weak versions. If you did disagree, please clarify. But rest assured based on my career (hint, very much financially and consulting oriented!) I literally make it my business to be very well informed.

And my point is not that I don’t trust my Future wife, my point is that the law should be fair. ALL law should be fair. If she can do it I should be able to. One sided laws encourage bad behavior.

I’m not impressed. I’m also starting to be suspicious that a lot of these new accounts are the same person, repeats of old banned members, or otherwise trolls. We’ve had a huge influx of anti marriage “catholics” the last few months and the posts and arguments are all the same.

Divorce laws are not gendered. Child support is not oppressive, and women do not walk away from divorce wealthy while a man has nothing. Women by and large lose more financially than men in divorce, and the post divorce poverty rates of men and women are very different. If you want specifics, do some unbiased research. Or just look back on these boards. The last time this tired issue came up, a regular poster, MaryMary1975 broke a lot down and provided a wealth of information. (She’s an attorney). But I’m not going to do your learning for you. I spend my days surrounded by law as it is.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Z
I try my best to submit to my husband. I sometimes fail. But that’s what the Bible tells me to do. Under the current system, that kind of arrangement is effectively illegal, no matter how happy I am. This is why folks like us are now trying to flee civil marriage–ironically setting up civil unions the way gay couples were doing a few years ago. So much for tolerating others beliefs. I will pray for you and hope you are convicted of Gods way for marriage.

…I know a lot of wives who are submissive in their marriages out of religious observance. None of them have ever had legal trouble with it.

I’m very submissive to my husband because that’s just the dynamic of our marriage (I am by no means abused or oppressed. My husband is definitely the leader in my home) and I have never run into a problem.

Perhaps you could be more specific?

 

[EasterJoy]

No, biblical it would be right to ask for parents’ blessings. They were saying that right is taken away from the parent since the state does not allow for parents’ opinion on the matter (if they say no). In Jewish tradition and history (and old testament), blessing from the parents were essential to have a fruitful (whatever) example here would be marriage. Honoring parents. This more of an individuals job rather than the states duty, but it is what he was believing to be true. I only posted his words not because I agreed with him but I wanted to hear others opinions on the matter too.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. At any rate, while it is praiseworthy to ask for parental blessings on the marriage you have chosen and to seek a peaceful relationship with both sets of in-laws, a Catholic is NOT bound by the 4th Commandment to consult with either parent before giving consent to marry. Period.

My opinion of his words is that he has a bone to pick with the state and is pretending that his personal opinion is part of the sacred deposit of faith or may be readily deduced from it. It is not.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m not impressed. I’m also starting to be suspicious that a lot of these new accounts are the same person, repeats of old banned members, or otherwise trolls. We’ve had a huge influx of anti marriage “catholics” the last few months and the posts and arguments are all the same.

Divorce laws are not gendered. Child support is not oppressive, and women do not walk away from divorce wealthy while a man has nothing. Women by and large lose more financially than men in divorce, and the post divorce poverty rates of men and women are very different. If you want specifics, do some unbiased research. Or just look back on these boards. The last time this tired issue came up, a regular poster, MaryMary1975 broke a lot down and provided a wealth of information. (She’s an attorney). But I’m not going to do your learning for you. I spend my days surrounded by law as it is.

I’m with you. None of this has the least bit to do with traditional Catholic belief or practice.

Wish you had a link to that thread; I missed it. Ah, well…I don’t know about you, but my time here is more than up today!

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

We also have to ask ourselves if there is not a question of integrity and perhaps even scandal with regards to presenting yourself as married and yet not being legally married because you have openly declared that you have avoided civil marriage in order to deny your spouse the rights your state gives to a spouse in the event of a marital break-up.

But it leads to a weird question. A depending on one’s beliefs a marriage could be a commitment between 2 people. I that case why the pressure to involve a 3rd party? And just as a prenup is typically forbidden for Catholic weddings because it is viewed as divorce prep (a point I disagree with) then why civil marriage that comes with a plethora of laws and rules about divorce? Or better yet, isn’t the Civil license like saying you want the potential wrath of the government to hold things together or punish if it should fail?

Ask yourself about that. Is that unconditional consent?

I’d counter by noting that even “unconditional consent” involves some major conditions from the other person or the church or the government. The church adds specific conditions to the union. Practically speaking each person already has conditions (plans about being a SAHM or discussions about delaying children). What you mentioned is similar to a concern many men have but on the other foot.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m not impressed. I’m also starting to be suspicious that a lot of these new accounts are the same person, repeats of old banned members, or otherwise trolls. We’ve had a huge influx of anti marriage “catholics” the last few months and the posts and arguments are all the same.

Divorce laws are not gendered. Child support is not oppressive, and women do not walk away from divorce wealthy while a man has nothing. Women by and large lose more financially than men in divorce, and the post divorce poverty rates of men and women are very different. If you want specifics, do some unbiased research. Or just look back on these boards. The last time this tired issue came up, a regular poster, MaryMary1975 broke a lot down and provided a wealth of information. (She’s an attorney). But I’m not going to do your learning for you. I spend my days surrounded by law as it is.

I’m with you. None of this has the least bit to do with traditional Catholic belief or practice.

Wish you had a link to that thread; I missed it. Ah, well…I don’t know about you, but my time here is more than up today!

 

[TheSeeker2014]

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. At any rate, while it is praiseworthy to ask for parental blessings on the marriage you have chosen and to seek a peaceful relationship with both sets of in-laws, a Catholic is NOT bound by the 4th Commandment to consult with either parent before giving consent to marry. Period.

My opinion of his words is that he has a bone to pick with the state and is pretending that his personal opinion is part of the sacred deposit of faith or may be readily deduced from it. It is not.

What do you mean talking out of both sides of my mouth? I simply posted his words and said it was his words because i found it an interesting view…

or is it because I brought up Jewish history and the ten commandments of honoring parents, the original root of Christianity (Judaism)??

 

[SerbCath]

Too good to wash someone’s feet, are we?

A husband has to be willing to be to his wife as Christ is to the Church (Ephesians 5). Let us examine what the four Gospels had to say about Christ’s idea of leadership and primacy:

But Jesus summoned them and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many."** Matt. 20:25-28**

Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves.” ** Luke 22:24-27**

Jesus summoned them and said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:42-45

*So when he had washed their feet (and) put his garments back on and reclined at table again, he said to them, "Do you realize what I have done for you? You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do. Amen, amen, I say to you, no slave is greater than his master nor any messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you understand this, blessed are you if you do it. * John 13:12-17

Non sequitur

Attacking an argument not posited (too good to wash someone’s feet). Therefore, all scripture that follows is not relevant.

 

[SerbCath]

A more selfish and self-centered attitude, an attitude that is more the antithesis of all preached and lived by our Lord and Savior, could hardly be articulated. To say that it is scandalous to hear such an idea flippantly tossed out by a Christian who believes in “sacramental marriage” is a gross understatement.

Ad hominem and too general. Filled with fluff but no engagement with the actual concerns about civil marriage.

Also an interesting use of personal attack while simultaneously calling my Christian faith into question.