Brand-new call: No marriage licenses for anyone

To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business

The solution is to unlink the religious institution of marriage — as distinguished from the secular institution of civil union — from the state. Under this proposal, any couple could register for civil union, recognized by the state, with all its rights and responsibilities. Religious couples could then go to the church, synagogue, mosque or other sacred institution of their choice in order to be married. These religious institutions would have total decision-making authority over which marriages to recognize. Catholic churches would not recognize gay marriages. Orthodox Jewish synagogues would not recognize a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew who did not wish to convert to Judaism. And those religious institutions that chose to recognize gay marriages could do so. It would be entirely a religious decision beyond the scope of the state. Under this new arrangement, marriage would remain a sacrament, as ordained by the Bible and as interpreted by each individual church. No secular consequences would flow from marriage, only from civil union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_customs_by_country#French_customs

In France, only civil weddings are legally recognized (due to the concept of laïcité), they are performed in the town hall by the mayor (or a deputy mayor or another councillor acting on his/her behalf). At least one of the spouses must reside in the town where the ceremony takes place. For people choosing to also have a religious wedding, the religious ceremony can only take place after the civil one, often in the same day.

Back when NC was considering its amendment 1 defining marriage just two years ago, when I was discussing it with others, especially those opposed, I was advocating this very idea — that government should simply recognize *only* civil unions between any two people for legal purposes like hospital visitation, court immunity, etc., and not try to define marriage at all, leaving that for the church. Most of the opposition I was receiving to this idea was from “our” side, claiming I was just giving in, when in reality, what I wanted was the protection of the institution of marriage. I was expecting the various court decisions that have taken place this year, even though they happened much faster than I thought they would.

Makes sense to me then that some states would just consider not issuing marriage licenses at all.

Might be a good idea, but good luck getting the government to stop giving benefits to favored groups, no?

It should be noted, though, that the reason government got into the “business” (so to speak) was to make sure that mothers and children were not left defenseless if the father died or abandoned them. Now I’d guess that most of the 1000-odd differences in law between the married and the single don’t speak directly to this, but that is the mess we’ve made. I would suggest junking it all and making a division of property part of every child support court case, but (a) a large portion of the people in these cases don’t have much money to begin with and (b) might drive abortion if they did. No easy answers as far as I can see.

http://www.worldmag.com/2014/10/city_hitching_post_exempt_from_anti_bia…

In the late 1800s, the German Chancellor Bismarck disallowed religious marriage ceremonies as the legal basis for marriage. This was part of his attack on the Roman Catholic Church in Germany. He was attempting to take away some of their power. As a result, a couple today goes to the German equivalent of the Justice of the Peace and is married in his office. There is usually a small chapel, of sorts, where family gathers. This makes the marriage legal, with or without a religious ceremony. Christian couples often do this on Friday, and then have a church wedding on Saturday. Bismarck was merely taking the legal basis for marriages back to the time before the Middle Ages. Until the Middle Ages, the Roman authorities, not the institutional Church, decided that status of married couples. Perhaps that is where we are heading.

As a Libertarian, I have been trying to make this point for quite some time. We say we want a simpler tax code. Everybody does, until it takes away their (in our case, religious) perk. When Uncle Sam gives you a tax break or gives you a handout, he takes some control. We should advocate that both state and federal government get completely out of the marriage business. Couples can make their own contracts regarding property, hospital visitation, etc. We should advocate for a flat tax where everybody is treated equitably (gay or straight, church or Wal-Mart). We should advocate that federal government get out of the schooling business, and the medical business, and the transportation business. Let the states be the laboratories of liberty. Let the cities, churches, and families provide the social safety nets.

I am amazed that this silliness keeps coming up.
It solves nothing, it will only compound the assault on the family.
Three reasons.
First - What happens to the right of spouses not to testify against each other. If you can’t define marriage, then you have no basis to determine the right to spousal privilege.
Second - Probate of wills and estates. These are a function of civil law. If marriage is no longer clearly defined in civil law, it will create havoc in the ability to pass property, possessions and inheritance to future generations.
Third - Tax law. The tax rate for a married couple filing jointly is different than that of individuals. Are you all in favor of each and every person being taxed separately, rather than as married couples? I despise the income tax and would love to see it go away. But that is not the only tax law that is affected by marriage. Estate taxes are based on the couples net worth. There is a different exemption for couples than for singles, are you wanting to give that up?
Here’s a couple of articles about the problems related to this idea.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5073/

http://stevedeace.com/news/laissez-faire-marriage/

[B-Lowry] As a result, a couple today goes to the German equivalent of the Justice of the Peace and is married in his office. There is usually a small chapel, of sorts, where family gathers. This makes the marriage legal, with or without a religious ceremony. Christian couples often do this on Friday, and then have a church wedding on Saturday.

What does america do that’s different?

And if a same-s’x couple appeared before the JoP in Germany (or anywhere), he’s legally allowed to marry them? I have no idea what would happen in Ukraine if a same-s’x couple went to the govt office to get married.

Marriage is the exclusive God ordained institution between one man (husband) and one woman (wife) in a mutually consented “one-flesh” relationship, consisting of mutually supportive companionship and physical union (Gen 1:27; 2:24; 1 Cor 7:1-6; Rom 1:26-27). As such marriage is a life-long, monogamous, heterosexual, covenant relationship between the man and the woman, publicly entered into before God as witness (Prov 2:17; Mal 2:16; Matt 19:6) and recognized by God’s institution of human government (Deut 22:13-17; Gen 29:25-26; Rom 13:1; Matt 22:21). The marriage covenant is authoritatively based on divine law and normally recognized by civil law. Thus, marriage is not a matter of mere social convention, but rather is a sacred bond between one man and one woman, defined by God alone, instituted by God and entered into before God.

Based on the biblical definition of marriage and its necessary implications, the following convictions represent the clear teaching of Scripture and, therefore, are the sincerely held religious beliefs of the First Baptist Church of Troy and all its ministries.

1. Marriage is the legal joining of one man (born anatomically male) and one woman (born anatomically female) in an exclusive union.

2. Any consensual sexual activity outside of the biblical definition of marriage is clearly prohibited by Scripture as is any non-consensual sexual activity perpetrated upon an innocent victim.

3. Since all human beings are God’s offspring (not children necessarily), any attempt to change or refusal to conform to one’s biological sex is clearly prohibited by Scripture.

It is the clear will of God for all human beings made in the image of God to abstain from immorality. This is especially true for professing believers in Christ (1 Thess 4:1-8). His image-bearers must abstain from immorality and refrain from approving immoral behavior (Rom 1:31-32). Those who practice sexual sin and/or give approval of such will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Eph 5:3-5; Rom 1:31-32; cf. Gal 5 and 1 Cor 6). Thankfully, God in His grace offers His gospel to all sinners. All human beings are sinners; there is none righteous (Romans 3:23). Most, if not all adults, are sexual sinners to one degree or another. God promises to wash, sanctify, and justify any sinner who comes to Him with repentant faith in the Person and Cross-work of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Though sexual sin carries severe consequences in this life and eternal judgment in the life to come, all sin, including sexual sin, can be forgiven via the grace of God available on account of Christ’s infinite atonement for sin, applied to those who repent of their sin and place their unreserved trust in Jesus Christ alone for their eternal salvation (1 Cor 6:9-11; Acts 17:30; 1 John 1:9; Romans 6:1-7). Because of human depravity, it is possible for any man to commit any sin at any time. Therefore, we must humbly take every opportunity to help others by introducing them to Jesus Christ, the only Savior of man from sin. In addition, we must help any professing Christian who is battling with sexual sin. We do so by accurately calling sin what it is and second by encouraging genuine repentance in order to restore fellowship with Christ and the joy of one’s salvation (Ps 51). Christ did not die to save us from a so-called “orientation”; He died to save us from our sin. Jesus Christ is love incarnate (1 John 4:8) and therefore by “reason of his much love” sacrificed his life on the cross in order save us, regenerate us, justify us, and sanctify us. In this way we bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ (Gal 6:1-6).

Repentance involves agreeing with God about one’s sin, admitting to God personally that one has sinned, asking God sincerely to forgive us our sin on the basis of the death and resurrection of Christ, and subsequently act to turn from sin by faith throughout our lives and be conformed to the image of Christ. Fundamentally, this is a Gospel issue. If one cannot honestly, without penalty of law, share these truths openly, clearly and act upon them, then human government has abandoned its God-ordained mission to be a minister of God for the rewarding of good as God defines good and the deterrent to evil as God defines evil (Romans 13). Human government, as a result, would be guilty of coercion and bullying the people of God into agreeing, accepting, embracing, and participating with those actions, events, or activities which God condemns. We love our neighbors, the people of Michigan, and the United States of America, but our love and loyalty to God far surpasses any human love. Therefore, this issue is a matter of individual Christian conscience that directly impacts our Christian homes, Christian churches, Christian Schools, Christian ministries, and Christian businesses. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Mike,

You forgot about Hermaphrodites.

More or less, the usual American process is determined by each state, but the long and short of it is that instead of a civil marriage ceremony being mandatory, the marriage license is mandatory and may require some degree of counseling. Internationally, whether same sex mirages are allowed varies by country and to a degree province.

Farmer Tom illustrates a sample of what is important about government being involved, BTW. Not every government involvement is necessary or good—homosexual rights groups count something like 1000 differences—but there are probably a fair number of things which really are critical to protecting “weaker vessels”.

Farmer Tom,

I still fail to see why divorcing marriage from civil law would necessarily have to have the consequences you outline. There is no reason that the law couldn’t allow us to simply register another person that would have the same civil rights that a marriage partner does, i.e. inheritance, right not to testify, right to speak legally for the other person, etc.

Those of us that believe similarly to Pastor Harding on the issue of marriage (though our church has an added clause taking into account abnormal genital birth defects) are then free to define marriage as part of God’s law, and it would also allow those of other religions or no religion to define their “marriage” as they please, answering about their choices to God, not government. If the church blessing is not necessary to obtain the civil benefits, then government would have no reason to attack us based on our performing a religious ceremony or not, at least as long as the freedom of religion clause is still intact and the courts respect it. I’m under no illusions that this would stop attacks on Christianity and speaking out against sin, but it would certainly remove one of the legal props being used against us.

Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, and while we should be salt and light to our culture, I think we should not try to tie church law to the laws of the state, other than as a consequence of helping to enact laws that promote good and punish evil. It is a certainty that some things we see as evil will be seen as good by our culture, but since to current civil government, all religions are essentially the same, with none better than the other, it’s very difficult to define legal standards in terms of biblical ones. As our culture continues to get worse, I’m coming more and more to the conclusion that whatever good will happen as a result of the church will happen because of lives led to Christ, saved and changed (who will then have voting influence) rather than lobbying to pass laws based on scripture.

Dave: Would you be willing to post your church’s statement on those with “abnormal genital birth defects?”

If civil union laws do exactly the same thing marriage laws do, then guess what? We are still talking about marriage. In the eyes of God it would still be marriage (assuming a man and a woman underwent it). For this proposal to really be something else, you would have to be able to make laws that do not imply marriage. The situation would have to be such that no one would equivocate the civil laws with marriage, either at church or outside of it.

Farmer Tom’s second link argues that abolishing marriage as law is unfeasible. It affects so much in law that likely you are going to end up with the same thing by another name. Nothing much gained in the process and probably a lot lost.

Farmer Tom’s first link is very telling: people talk about marriage in the abstract, but little about children or parenthood. Marriage is not just about marriage partners — it is about children and their rights and protections.