Brand-new call: No marriage licenses for anyone

Anyone know what marriage looked like in the 1st century gentile world?

Say in Rome? Asia Minor? Greece?

Was the state involved? It would be interesting to know

Regarding Jim’s question, everything I’ve read about marriage in the ancient Mediterranean indicates that pagans and Jews had some attitudes that we would consider abhorrent today in terms of marriage, and that apart from Jews, women and children were not very well protected. Roman pagans evidently commented on how amazing it was that Christians took care of their own, a Greek commented that marriage was for children, mistresses were for the “ordinary needs”, and prostitutes were for “special fun” or some such thing. Pastor Levy (formerly at 4th, now at Grace Baptist of Owatonna) noted that his understanding of Pharisaic Judiasm (his heritage no less) was that a wife could be divorced for something as trivial as burning the toast.

So I would guess that the understanding of marriage and family we’ve had in “Christendom”, especially the plethora of legal protections intended (at least originally) to protect women and children, is a historic anomaly, and that the early church maintained those admirable families through its own discipline. So if the libertarians—and I count myself as almost one—get their wish, it’s not the end of the world, but an opportunity to show the world what Christ is all about.

[Kirk Mellen]

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

http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-church-marriage-statements

Found this in my inbox this morning, from a pastor friend of mine. And yes, he tends to use a “little” bombast in his writing style.
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2014/05/iowa-first-district-republicans-laissez-faire-marriage-foolish/

[farmer Tom N]

I am amazed that this silliness keeps coming up.[/QUOTE]

I resemble that remark!!!

[QUOTE=Farmer Tom N] It solves nothing, it will only compound the assault on the family.[/QUOTE]

Currently, the state is the ultimate arbiter of marriage. Thus, the Christian institution of marriage is abused. My marriage is seen as the same as the marriage between Pamela Anderson and Tommy What’s-His-Face. Get married and divorced in Vegas for $99.95. Get married so you can have that cool tax break. Marriage is holier than that in my book.

And it is only getting worse. If you demand that the state arbitrate marriage, you absolutely will have state-sanctioned Pamela/Tommy farces. You absolutely will have state-sanctioned Las Vegas farces. You must have gay marriage (equality under law), you will eventually have polygamy, and you will eventually see all sorts of other perversions of Holy Christian Matrimony. The state is secular. It has no means to protect marriage as a picture of Christ’s love for the Church. The state arbitrates, and holiness is dragged through the mud. And you support this abomination with your tax dollars. You will even be required to recognize state-sanctioned foolishness in your business, and eventually in your churches.

So yes, getting government out of the marriage business solves something. It allows the Church to reclaim holy marriage. It follows the Baptist (and Fundamentalist) distinctive of separation from the world.

[QUOTE=Farmer Tom N] 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. [/QUOTE]

Spouses should be required to testify accurately, whether or not it legally damages the other spouse. Courts are about getting to the truth.

[QUOTE=Farmer Tom N] 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.[/QUOTE]

That is what wills are for. We already have thousands of non-married couples in the US who successfully pass on their children and worldly possessions.

[QUOTE=Farmer Tom N] 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?[/QUOTE]

Yes, tax individuals separately, preferably at a flat rate without any credits or deductions. Equality under the law.

From Mr. Deace’s article: [QUOTE=Steve Deace]
Ironically enough, because the church would have to step in to fill the void left by the state in most of these situations (including divorce and child custody cases), this solution would actually empower religious institutions’ influence over the culture all the more.
Read more at http://stevedeace.com/news/laissez-faire-marriage/#A0mYb7WdSrFQRBxq.99 [/QUOTE]

This statement simply is not true. The state already decides tens of thousands of custody cases outside marriage. Legal marriage should not protect a father who abuses his child any more than it would protect a non-married father who abuses his child. Mr. Deace’s argument is a red herring.