5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License

September 3, 2004 12:41 PM

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License
posted by reklaw (46 comments total)

Funny that conservatives are for privatizing everything... yet religious institutions such as marriage have to be defined and defended by the government. I for one am in favor of privatizing marriage.
posted by wfrgms at 12:54 PM on September 3, 2004

What an interesting 18th century document-- there's so much cool stuff out on the internet!
posted by gwint at 12:57 PM on September 3, 2004

18th century? It has an anecdote from 1993!
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:02 PM on September 3, 2004

Now this is comedy gold. Take that, Daily Show!
posted by rks404 at 1:04 PM on September 3, 2004

"As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God's law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying"

See? The problem takes care of itself! It must be great to live in such an easy world, where life is cut-and-dry and all the answers are there laid out for you.
posted by mathowie at 1:05 PM on September 3, 2004

Was this written by a 14 year old?

Quoting the dictionary = idiot
posted by chris0495 at 1:07 PM on September 3, 2004

WackyChristiansFilter.
posted by callmejay at 1:09 PM on September 3, 2004

Funny that conservatives are for privatizing everything... yet religious institutions such as marriage have to be defined and defended by the government. I for one am in favor of privatizing marriage.
posted by wfrgms at 2:54 PM CST on September 3

Another classic example of this is gun laws should be left to the states, whereas marijuana laws better fucking be in the hands of the pharmaceutical companies government.
posted by the fire you left me at 1:13 PM on September 3, 2004

Man, I can't wait until the Rapture when God comes and gets his Christians and takes them up to heaven. Earth will be so much nicer then.
posted by rks404 at 1:17 PM on September 3, 2004

And another reason why christians shouldn't reproduce,
posted by 2sheets at 1:30 PM on September 3, 2004

I've gotta say I agree with this. Churches should marry people. The government should grant civil unions. It would make things a lot simpler.
posted by jpoulos at 1:30 PM on September 3, 2004

And another reason why christians shouldn't reproduce.

Well that was uncalled-for.
posted by jpoulos at 1:48 PM on September 3, 2004

fire, I don't think all Christians believe marijuana laws should be left to the federal government. I'm a Christian, and I live in Oregon, where Ashcroft is trying to overturn our assisted suicide and medical marijuana laws.

I don't believe either thing should be legal, but Oregon voters passed both measures, and I don't see that the federal government has any business interfering with the state law.

rks, most Christians are annoying. I can't really explain this. But one of the reasons I am a Christian is because I genuinely believe a relationship with God makes people better than they would otherwise be. (But yeah, there are plenty of jerks)
posted by Happydaz at 1:55 PM on September 3, 2004

He's been playing with snakes too long or something. This is so not true: When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we.

If Christians don't want to take part in the government, then they have no right to try to ban gay marriage (or even vote, let alone talk of making anything illegal). But all they do is try to get the Government to dictate what they think is moral. Two-faced much?
posted by amberglow at 2:02 PM on September 3, 2004

happydaz - sorry, I didn't really mean to come off so anti-christian there. I have a lot of friends and family that are people of faith and whom I respect immensely. It's just that some of the jerks claim to represent all Christians and I get so annoyed that I forget. Thanks for the reminder.
posted by rks404 at 2:10 PM on September 3, 2004

This rant wasn't even biblical.

King James Version, simply because it was the closest Bible in reach:

1 Peter 2:13-15:
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that arre sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men."
posted by konolia at 2:16 PM on September 3, 2004

I don't know, he has a certain view that could be supported. And notice, that mainly he favors withdrawing from the idea of state-sponsered marriages vice trying to have State enforced morality. I don't see this as contradicting. Maybe contradicting the views of other Christians, but Muslims, Humanists, atheists, and Jedi all contradict each other too. So, in a small way, give the guy a break. And he does have a point - marriage is a religious institution. States should be in charge of civil unions.

And the family Bible thing is sort of true. In most states, a family Bible record of birth, marriage, and death counts as a legal document. When religion and genealogy get intermixed, it's still genealogy.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 2:18 PM on September 3, 2004

Yeah, I'm with Lord Chancellor on this one, many states will honor family bibles and other records as legal documents in certain situations. We'd have to get a lawyer to fully comment, but I have heard of such cases where family records were used in court.

The problem I have with this is the implication that homosexuality should be outlawed, but the state shouldn't interfere with heterosexual marriages. I personally would like to see marriage used as a religious, or spiritual, state between two people. Civil Unions, on the other hand, should be the legal state that allows for paternity, inheritance, insurance and other rights. Churches could decide if they want to marry same-sex couples or not, but the states should have to honor same-sex legal relationships in order to fulfill the terms of both the federal constitution and their state constitution. To continue to ban same-sex marriage is a possible violation of our rights to liberty and privacy.

Sorry for the derail. I don't think this guy's as crazy as he sounds - it's a clear argument against government interference in our personal lives. If he'd not mentioned homosexuality, or had accepted it as a personal choice, this essay would have been more consistent.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:33 PM on September 3, 2004

Courts would accept family bibles (which can be faked easily) as evidence for something other than an inheritance fight/case? I don't buy it.

And we live in a society together, with rules and laws. I'd be happy to deny couples that don't get marriage licenses the more than 1000 rights and benefits married couples get, but since he's talking about straight people, they'd get them anyway, probably, as common-law spouses or something.
posted by amberglow at 2:48 PM on September 3, 2004

Many things can be faked. Heck, in a couple years I can notorize documents for crying out loud. But as I was trying to reapply for a duplicate birth certificate it said that as proof I could submit a family bible. Which is kinda nice because there are some people that live out in the boonies who were born at home and that's their documentation of birth. I guess they could take that information and super-legitimized-it-with-State-approval but in the end, its the same thing.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 3:16 PM on September 3, 2004

Courts would accept family bibles (which can be faked easily)
"Hey, wait a minute! This is just a Dean Koontz anthology!"
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:19 PM on September 3, 2004

amberglow, again, we need a lawyerly person to clear up the specifics of the idea of family bibles as legal documents, but I know of a few people who used family bible records to gain a form of birth certificate. If someone isn't born in a hospital they may or may not have a birth certificate or a SSI number. Family records can be used to establish a record of birth etc.

A major problem with this essay, however, is that it pertains to heterosexual marriages only. When I first saw the headline I was wondering if this could somehow be an argument FOR equal protection of all unions, civil, religious, heterosexual and homosexual. Marriage, in the Christian sense, is in many ways incompatable with the governments issuing of licenses.
posted by elwoodwiles at 3:19 PM on September 3, 2004

The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

Sounds like an argument for same-sex marriage to me. Drinks all around!
posted by ChrisTN at 3:29 PM on September 3, 2004

In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates."

Someone wrote on the internet that unnamed parents in an unnamed town had a problem with an unnamed school and unnamed bureaucrats claimed ownership of their unnamed children? That's sound legal advice in my book! You can't argue with facts like there being a year 1993 or a state called Wisconsin.
posted by revgeorge at 3:40 PM on September 3, 2004

Sounds like an argument for same-sex marriage to me. Drinks all around! Yer damned right it is. Which is why we must love these fine, cranky American individualists. This guy is out there pioneering the frontiers of what can be done and what cannot be done in this world, and in his way, he is more daring than any dozen avant garde artists in New York. Even in Christian terms, he is thinking way outside the box. He chopping down trees, and clearing the ground for his own odd little cabin, but he's also clearing the way for you and me -- and throwing open the way to gay marriage, polygamy and the whole range of free, associative behaviors of which hunan beans are capable, but which are discouraged by the state. A good guy -- even if he may be prejudiced against gays (although I suspect he just thinks they're sinners).
posted by Faze at 3:41 PM on September 3, 2004

heh, Get hitched in a Gym.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:21 PM on September 3, 2004

The "family Bibles are legal records" argument is utter bullshit--it comes from the same legal geniuses that brought you the "you don't have to pay taxes if the flag has gold fringe" argument.

Family records--whether kept in a Bible, Torah, Q'uran, or copy of Mrs. Beeton's Guide to Housekeeping--can be used to verify past events in the absence of public documents (if, for example, the courthouse burned down in 1890 and you need to prove that your great-great-great-great grandfather was a veteran of the Civil War), but they are subject to the ordinary standards of document examination in court.

However, you can't just write shit down in your house and expect the government to give a rat's ass.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:33 PM on September 3, 2004

(My point here is that the idea that writing something in a Bible automatically makes it somehow Special is ridiculous. It's like something the kid next to you would tell you in third-grade study hall.

Family records, written anywhere, can be used in legal cases if they can be dated and documented as authentic. What book they were written in is irrelevant--it's not like the Word o' the [Christian] Lord makes the record any more authoritative.)
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:35 PM on September 3, 2004

This is interesting because it falls into the weird trap where religion and law appear to define the same thing in different ways. I've recently argued to (Christian) friends that if they were to get married in their church, yet forget to file the marriage license, they'd still be married in the way that counts. If they disagree, then they're holding the state at an equal or higher level than the church.

Of course, I had to crack up today when another friend mentioned that something like that has actually happened. She got married a couple weeks ago and the county still hasn't finished the paperwork. I almost fell out of my chair laughing at church when she comically said she's been living in "illegal sin!"
posted by mikeh at 4:58 PM on September 3, 2004

AmericanChristianFilter.

Really - you know, ya could at least attempt to think about how your arguments, pro or anti, appear to the rest of the innernet.

marriage is a religious institution. States should be in charge of civil unions.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 10:18 PM GMT on September 3 - I mean, that's not true in the States ffs. Marriage by the Mayor ain't necessarily religious. Nor, I would posit, is anything 'sanctified' by a preacher in Vegas.

At least he recognises that divorce is as illegal [in a christian sense] as same-sex marriage. Any right wing religious mefite who is pro-marriage (90%+, maybe?) but is
anti-gay marriage is clearly cherry picking the bible.

And that truly does have a long tradition...
posted by dash_slot- at 5:09 PM on September 3, 2004

I have a friend who has a cousin who wrote his name backwards in the family bible three times and now the IRS has forgotten he exists!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:34 PM on September 3, 2004

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that arre sent by him for the punishment of evildoers

So that's why all the religious nutballs are voting for Bush!
posted by rushmc at 6:42 PM on September 3, 2004

If one wants to marry without a State licence because of his/her religious beliefs I don't see any problems with that, as the only consequence (afaik) is that their marriage is not recognized by State ..but they only need recognition by God, so what does that "pastor" really want ?

I think he's much into the _politics_ of further entrenching religious position into State laws without evidently giving a shit about what other people want, as he thinks sodomy should be illegal only because his favourite books tell so.

Talk about yet another dangerous religious extremist with a political agenda.
posted by elpapacito at 6:50 PM on September 3, 2004

At least he recognises that divorce is as illegal [in a christian sense] as same-sex marriage. Any right wing religious mefite who is pro-marriage (90%+, maybe?) but is
anti-gay marriage is clearly cherry picking the bible.


How so? When the Bible clearly states marriage is a covenent between a man and a woman, I don't see the problem with being pro-marriage yet anti two-people-uniting-in-some-way-that-isn't-the-marriage-I-support
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 7:22 PM on September 3, 2004

The Bible clearly states that divorce is wrong. Even Jesus himself says so (whereas Jesus never said anything about TEH GAY).

Therefore, if people want the US's public policy on marriage to reflect the Christian Bible's teachings, then divorce must be outlawed immediately. Through a Constitutional Amendment, if necessary.

This must be done for the following reasons:

A) Between 2 and 10 percent of all people are homosexual. This means that 90% of the population is IN DANGER OF COMMITTING THE SIN OF DIVORCE!!! Clearly, this is a more widespread problem than same-sex marriage.

B) Same-sex marriage may or may not lead to an increase in divorce rates. HOWEVER, IT IS INDISPUTABLE THAT THE LEGALIZATION OF DIVORCE LED TO AN INCREASE IN DIVORCE RATES.

It's only logical.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:30 PM on September 3, 2004

The Bible clearly states that divorce is wrong.

Not in cases of adultery...
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 7:50 PM on September 3, 2004

In some cases (Lot's), the Bible says it's okay to have sex with your kids. I don't care what the Bible says, I ain't doing it.
posted by josephtate at 9:58 PM on September 3, 2004

You're a good man, josephtate.
posted by rks404 at 11:18 PM on September 3, 2004

I think that the point this preacher is trying to make is that one should leave "marriage" as the christian seventh holy sacrament, on the same level as ordination or confirmation.
The currently named "marriage license" could be thus called a "civil union license" and retain all its current prerogatives under its new appellation.

It's not a dumb idea - doing this could kill two birds with one stone.

First bird: homosexuals and marriage.
Let's admit for a moment that homosexuals that want to marry don't want to do so in order to receive the seventh holy sacrament, but want to marry in order to legitimize their union in the eyes of the law and thus benefit from its advantages (different taxation possibilities, better heredity laws, and hell lot more of other stuff)
If all these advantages are tied to a "civil union license" and not to a "marriage license" there is absolutely no reason why homosexuals couldn't marry. The underlings of such a union would no longer be the christian bible-thumping institution but a civil institution.
[If some homosexuals want to marry into the faith they'll have to check their local parish/church. Some accept such a marriage, some don't. But in any case, it would be a case of religious conviction and no longer a civil/legal question.]

Second bird: christians and their "homosexual marriages destroy/mock the christian faith/the christian institution" argument.
Nope! There would be no more "marriages" on a civil level - only "civil unions" between two consenting adults of any faith or none.
No more mention of "marriage" means no more biblical argument used against such a union in the context of legal affairs.
It's really that simple.
Now, if christians don't like the fact that their parish/church is marrying homosexuals then they can take their argument to their respective religious institutions, not to the state.
Christians could thus keep their seventh holy sacrament intact and any decline in marriages would be a purely religious question. (As currently is the decline of ordination. Less straight men want to be ordained into priesthood yet more women and homosexuals want to be ordained. Does anyone see christians lobbying the government to clarify "ordination"? I don't think so. It's a religious question. Period.)

In sum, I totally agree with jpoulos.
The state should not perform marriages but civil unions.
Time to instore a real separation of state and church.
posted by ruelle at 4:09 AM on September 4, 2004

And Jesus, answering, said unto them, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's
and unto God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:14-17)

In other words, just get the damn license so your pastor will marry you. That way, when you get divorced ten years later, you can hang the stupid license over your toilet and scoff at it every time you take a leak.
posted by alumshubby at 6:30 AM on September 4, 2004

As for homosexuals marrying, outlaw sodomy as God's law demands, and there will be no threat of sodomites marrying.

And yet he's strangely silent on all those sinners going to hell for wearing cotton-poly blends (Leviticus 19:19).
posted by filmgoerjuan at 11:13 AM on September 4, 2004

Ruelle, why do Christians get to keep "marriage" though? Many other religious groups and even non-religious societies were celebrating marriages long before Christianity came along. There are many, many more secular marriages in the world than there are Christian (or any other religion's) marriages.

It's an outrage to suggest that, for example, a marriage in a Christian church is any more of a marriage than a marriage in a Hindu temple...synagogue...mosque...Ethical Culture society...Theosophist meeting hall...

We could adopt the French solution of forcing everyone to have a civil marriage if they want the civil society's marriage benefits (health insurance, etc.), and then letting people do whatever they want in their houses of worship.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:35 PM on September 4, 2004

as common-law spouses or something.

There are actually very few states that recognize common-law marriages.
posted by SuzySmith at 2:47 PM on September 4, 2004

In some cases (Lot's), the Bible says it's okay to have sex with your kids. I don't care what the Bible says, I ain't doing it.


Actually, the Bible did not condone at all what Lot's daughters did, and their offspring wound up founding nations that caused Israel no end of problems
posted by konolia at 6:10 PM on September 4, 2004

Actually, the Bible did not condone at all what Lot's daughters did,

the thing that's so disgusting about that story is how obviously it's a cover story for a sickeningly abusive dad. He raped his daughters regularly and eventually got them pregnant, and then made up a story about how they were the perpetrators, they had sex with him against his wishes, by getting him drunk this one time - the poor guy just had no choice, folks - and the writers of the bible went for it! They passed on Lot's nonsensical claims (yeah, those wily seductive young daughters, always trying to get their old hairy dads drunk so they can have sex with them!) over what seems like the obvious truth. It's a pretty yucky moment in the bible, you have to admit.
posted by mdn at 10:00 AM on September 6, 2004

We could adopt the French solution of forcing everyone to have a civil marriage if they want the civil society's marriage benefits (health insurance, etc.), and then letting people do whatever they want in their houses of worship.

Exactly, Sidhedevil.. Be them Roman Catholic marriages, Jewish marriages, Protestant marriages, Hindu marriages, whatever.. all marriages would be a purely religious matter and not intervene whatsoever with the civil benefits of being in a union with someone.
posted by ruelle at 3:07 PM on September 8, 2004